Disposed

Sreelekshmi Sanush v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2022WP(C)/14366/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging an enquiry conducted by the Drug Controller regarding alleged license irregularities at a clinic. The court held the enquiry officer must issue a notice to the complainant and afford an opportunity of hearing before concluding the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to order the officer to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before concluding the enquiry based on her complaint.

Sreelekshmi Sanush Vs the State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO.14366 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SREELEKSHMI SANUSH,
AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O. SANUSH, CHELLAMANI BHAVAN,
THITTAMEL, CHENGANNUR,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN 689 121.

¶8

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

3 THE DRUG CONTROLLER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY RED CROSS ROAD, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 035.

¶13

4 DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 010.

¶14

5 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR VLCC HEALTH CARE LTD, (REGISTERED OFFICE) M14 GREATER COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.

¶15

6 THE MANAGER, VLCC CENTER AT COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1ST FLOOR, LITTLE FLOWER CHURCH, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, NEAR LF CHURCH, ELAMKULAM, KOCHI, KERALA 682 020.

¶16

WP(C)NO.14366 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

BY ADVS.
BASIL CHANDY VAVACHAN
CHARUTHA BHAIJU(K/000413/2018)
GEORGIE SIMON(K/001374/2001)
BASIL SCARIA(D/8405/2018)
FATHIMA SHALU S.(K/2636/2021)
SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 12.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C)NO.14366 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2022

¶23

The petitioner availed the services offered by the VLCC Health Care Ltd. after taking a prime membership for an amount of Rs.1,18,000/-. According to the petitioner, in spite of following the diet chart and the exercises prescribed by the Health Centre, she did not get the expected result. Thereupon, the petitioner caused a lawyer notice to be sent to which the 5^th respondent send a reply raising untenable contentions on subsequent enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the 5^th respondent does not have the prescribed license for conducting the centre and had not engaged the services of qualified experts. The petitioner therefore submitted Exts.P3 to P5 complaints before respondents 2 to 4. The prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to consider the representations.

¶24

Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent submitted that, based on petitioner’s complaint the 3^rd respondent/Drug Controller & Licensing Authority conducted an enquiry and found the allegations to be false.

¶26

¶27

WP(C)NO.14366 OF 2022

¶28

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not even issued with a notice during the course of the said enquiry, and being the complainant, the petitioner is entitled to be heard before the enqiry is concluded.

¶29

Learned Government Pleader submits that no instructions as to the fate of the enquiry is received from the 3^rd respondent.

¶30

I find the merit and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, having initiated the enquiry, the complainant is also bound to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the enquiry is concluded.

¶31

The writ petition is hence disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to require the officer who conducted the enquiry based on petitioner’s complaint to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before concluding the enquiry.

¶32

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶33

¶34

WP(C)NO.14366 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14366/2022

¶37

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-

¶38

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22-10-
2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶39

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 21-
01-2022

¶40

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14-02-
2022 BEFORE THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH
DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶41

Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14-02-
2022 BEFORE THE DRUGS CONTROLLER
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14-02-
2022 BEFORE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE

¶42

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-

¶43

Exhibit R5(1)TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT FOR INTRAVENOUS
GLUTATHIONE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit R5(2)TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE
Exhibit R5(3)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
DRUG CONTROLLER
Exhibit R5(4)TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 03/05/2022
SENT TO THE DRUG CONTROLLER

Sreelekshmi Sanush v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreelekshmi Sanush v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh.P.R Vs Child Welfare Committee

Roopam Engineers and Contractors Private Limited Vs Indian Space Research Organization (Isro)

The Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3260, Vs the Reserve Bank of India

K.Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala

Ubaidulla T.K. Vs Union of India

Ajmal Khan Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the Secretary to Government of Kerala