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

7that she was so shocked to have been treated in this way that she phoned the GP surgery foradvice. There was some exploration in cross-examination as to whether Mrs R spoke to aGP or receptionist, but suffice to say we accept that, soon after leaving the pharmacy, MrsR sought advice from the GP surgery and was told that the prescribed medication shouldnot have been withheld.Whether there was, as a matter of fact,any later contact between Mrs R and Miss Vora on13 July is a matter of dispute. It is however at least common ground that Mrs R's husbandtelephoned Miss Vora that evening, although the number of calls and what was then said isnot agreed. Mrs R claims that she was present when these phone calls were made, but wehave not heard evidence from Mr R. In due course we will consider Miss Vora's accountsof her conversation with Mr R. It is perhaps sufficient to say at this stage that Mrs R wasnot satisfied with Miss Vora's response to the further representations made by her husband.Mrs R also telephoned the General Pharmaceutical Council on the morning of 14 July andwas advised to revisit the pharmacy to see if MissVora would give her the prescribedmedication withheld.It is common ground that Mrs R went back to the shop on 14 July with her work colleagueMrs McKenzie as a witness. We noted Mrs McKenzie's evidence that Mrs R asked hercolleagues if somebody would accompany her. Mrs McKenzie volunteered as she was freeto do so. Mrs R's evidence was to the effect that she tried to have a civil conversation withMiss Vora and asked for her outstanding prescription item, but Miss Vora resolutelyrefused until she paid an outstanding balance of £2.99, i.e. further to the £3 tendered.In her complaint to the General Pharmaceutical Council, which we find as a fact waswritten on 14 July 2011, she said this:"She went on to say that she had now placed an outstanding balance of £2.99 on myprescription charge and I could not have the item until I paid this amount. Iexplained to her that when I paid £37.60 by credit card yesterday, this was the fullamount payable for all the items on my prescription, so I had no outstandingbalance. She was again abusive and aggressive, she refused to listen to anything Ihad to say, and was shouting and raising her voice at me over the counter. At thispoint I realised that I was fighting a losing battle and she had left me with no optionother than to make a formal complaint to the General Pharmaceutical Council.Once again she refused point blank to give me the item in questions and thenshouted at my colleague and I 'Get out of shop, bitches'. Up to this point mycolleague had been just standing next to me and not engaged in any conversationwith her. I pointed out once again that what she was doing was illegal, and shestated that 'Yes it is, but I want that money back'.I cannot believe that a dispensing chemist would behave and act in this. My pointto her was would she have done the same thing to an elderly person or maybe ayoung mother who would not have been able to afford to pay for the damages? Theprinciple 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 is