Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

17have the item until she paid this amount. Miss Vora acknowledged to Mrs R that what shehad done was illegal, but refused to return the medication until the outstanding sum waspaid. She was abusive and aggressive and refused to listen to reason, even though it wasmade clear that Mrs R would proceed to complain to General Pharmaceutical Council. Thematter culminated in Miss Vora shouting 'Get out of my shop, you bitches'. Despite thisabuse, Mrs McKenzie remained behind. Miss Vora made a comment that Mrs R “canafford it, she is rich”. Mrs McKenzie attempted to reason with Miss Vora by pointing outthat the prescribed medicine was a different issue to that of the damage to goods and, evenmore crucially, that her attitude left Mrs R with no option but to make a complaint to theGeneral Pharmaceutical Council. Such reasoning was to no avail.Later that day Mrs R duly made her complaint to the General Pharmaceutical Council inwriting.The terms in which Mrs R wrote are worth examination because they illuminatesome of the public interest issues involved. She said this on the very same day:"I cannot believe that a dispensing chemist would behave and act in this way. Mypoint to her was would she have done the same thing to an elderly person or maybea young mother who would not have been able to afford to pay for the damages?The principle I wish to make is that she does not have the right to play God when itcomes to withholding prescription items. I see that the damage to the shop goods isa separate incident and nothing to do with keeping back the prescription item inquestion. My colleague did try to explain this to her but to no avail."Ms Vora has resolutely denied that the events had occurred as described by Mrs R and MrsMcKenzie. However this may have been addressed in submissions made prior to ourfindings of fact, the main issue in this case was who was telling the truth. We did notbelieve Miss Vora's account.