Consumer court frowns at smile doc

In a letter written to A A Halbe, president of the Maharashtra Consumer Disputed Redressal Commission (Mumbai), the two members — Prof (Dr) G N Shenoy and Vanmala Manjure — have acused a high-ranking officer from the Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs of interfering in the case.

Following the complaint, the case has been transferred to the Additional Consumer District Redressal Forum, near CST, where it is coming up for re-hearing on July 30.

Roma Mehta, a journalist, had filed a case against Dr Mayekar, a specialist in cosmetic and aesthetic dentistry, claiming that his services were“deficient and incomplete.” The case was filed in March 1998, and the initial hearing in November 1998 proved inconclusive.

The complaint, the letter says, was then heard by the members on March 5. A few days later, an officer from the consumer affairs department rang up the Forum, the letter says, and Vanmala took the call. The officer wanted to speak to Dr Shenoy, but as a hearing was in progress, the conversation could not materialise, the letter says.

“The said officer contacted Dr Shenoy at his hospital the next day,” the letter says, adding that “the officer wanted the judgement in the said case to be given in favour of one of the litigant parties.” Again, on March 24, the officer called up at the Forum and “insisted on speaking to Dr Shenoy”. The hearing had to be discontinued to attend the call, and the officer then “commanded Dr Shenoy to give a judgement favouring a particular party.”

In their letter, written on March 24, the judges have said that “such pressure from high-rankingofficers…is most unfortunate and adversely affects the administration of justice, tends to impede its course.” It “shakes public confidence in judicial institutions and also severly compromises the functioning of the court and its dignity,” the letter says. The members have further said that they would resign but never give a judgement against their conscience. They have said that it would be “unfair” on their part to write a judgement in this matter and have also asked for an inquiry.

The members have also said that the tone and tenor of the government officer was “very disgusting and highly offensive.” Further, “what hurt us most was the courage he exhibited by stalling a hearing in progress to make his unlawful demand,” the letter says.

The high-ranking official mentioned in the letter, N B Dhanorkar, deputy secretary in the department, however refuted all the allegations. “I did not pressurise Shenoy,” he said.

However, Dhanorkar admitted that Dr Mayekar had met him and also thesecretary of the department about the case, complaining about the way the case was being handled. “He complained to me that Shenoy is not giving a good judgement, and so I spoke to Shenoy,” Dhanorkar said. But he did not try to put any pressure, he added.

On the other hand, while Dhanorkar says Dr Mayekar met him, the secretary and “some other people” about the case, Dr Mayekar whose client list like a virtual who’s who of Mumbai’s beauty and fashion industry denied having ever met any one of them. “I am being unnecessarily harassed,” he said, adding that he had never tried to put pressure on anyone in this regard. The matter was sub-judice, Dr Mayekar further said, adding that therefore he could not speak about it.

Last month, he got a notification saying that the case had been transferred to another court, he said, adding that he did not know why the case was transferred.