Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member
15th day of December 2022
CC 417/15 filed on 21/07/2015
Complainant: P.Chandraprabha, “Ramakrishna”, Thiruvullakkavu
East Nada, P.O.Cherpu, Thrissur.
(By Adv. A. D. Benny, Thrissur)
Opposite Parties: 1. Manager, Bloom Senso, Hearing Centre,
West Fort, Thrissur- 680 004.
2. Bloom senso hearing centre,
Rep.by Managing Director, 39/4778,
Thoufia Complex, behind Central Bank of India,
Opp.Kanoos Cinema, MG Road,
Ravipuram, Kochi- 682 016.
(By Adv. Rajeevan D Raja, Thrissur)
O R D E R
By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:
The complainant purchased a Hearing Aid equipment from the 1st opposite party on 30/04/13 with bill No.044 for Rs. 2,60,000/- and the product bill was issued by the 2nd opposite party. Earlier on 24/07/12 the complainant purchased a hearing aid for Rs.60,000/-. Since the same does not suit to the complainant’s use, the latter product was purchased at the advice of the 1st opposite party. It was made believed by the 1st opposite party that the product was of high quality and will suit to her use also. Even though the equipment is changed, she could not hear any more. So several complaints were preferred with the opposite parties and several times the programmes were changed in the equipment system. All these repairs turned ineffective as the product was of low quality. Since the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service a lawyer notice dated 26/04/15 were sent to them, which yielded no result. Hence this complaint.
- Version by the opposite parties:
The complainant diagnosed to have bilateral moderate sensor neural hearing loss. She purchased Widex RE-9 BTE hearing aids from 1st opposite party in July, 2012, after signing the appropriate agreement documents, in which it is clearly stated that she could return the aids within 15 days, if not satisfied. The complainant used to come to the centre in regular intervals and attended by an audiologist. In 2013, when she reported of having difficulties in hearing soft sounds. She purchased another hearing aid with flexibility to return the aids within 15 days of purchase. After the second purchase also, she had repeated complaints our senior audiologist had also made two visits to the complainant’s residence and the senior audiologist reported that since the complainant did not like the background noise, the aids were set at low levels. Then complainant was counseled thoroughly about getting used to the aids and having realistic expectations. The complainant used to visit the clinic regularly for servicing, repairing, and accessories and the complainant was attended by the opposite parties’ staff efficiently. At no point of time she expressed her feeling that the product is of inferior quality. The aids prescribed to the complainant were one of the best proven technologies. As there is no deficiency in service, opposite party prayed for a dismissal.
3) Points for consideration are?
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties or not?
b) Reliefs and costs?
4) The complainant appeared before this Commission and filed proof affidavit in which she has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. The produced document was marked as Ext. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the bill dated 30/04/13 amounted 1,95,000/-; Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 21/04/2015 and Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement cards .
5) In this case the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version. Thereafter the case has not been represented by the opposite parties nor evidence adduced. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a hearing aid system worth Rs.2,60,000/-. Ext. P1 proves the total amount or Rs.2,60,000/- but it bears a discount of Rs.65,000/- and total payment of Rs.1,95,000/-.
6) The complainant raised non suitability of the hearing aid system with the opposite parties and several times opposite parties changed the system programme of the equipment. On the other hand opposite parties contended that after examination by senior audiologist the system corrected and the senior audiologist reported that the background noise caused difficulty to the complainant and it were kept at low levels. This aspect has been thoroughly verified by the expert commissioner and filed Ext.C1 report stating that the attachment number four, a screen shot from the fitting software of the specific hearing aid, for the clients audiogram, shows the receiver as RecM, with wire fled (Custom made receiver), which provides adequate gain even at lower frequencies as shown by the shaded region. This specific custom fitting will give adequate intensity at all frequencies as shown by the shaded region in the attachment, however since it is an occluded mould, chances of increased noise and echo will be present. This in turn will reduce the speech intelligibility of the client. Further C1 states that attachment number five, screen shot from the fitting software of the specific hearing aid for the client’s audio gram, shows the receiver as RecM, with wire open, which in fact provides less gain at lower frequencies, making the low frequency signal difficult to understand. This specific setting will be selected by the audiologist when the client complains of high noise, or irritation or echo in the ear while using the hearing aid. A client with the specific audiogram, on using this specific acoustic identity will find it difficult to understand low intensity sounds. Thus the evidence on record shows that the settings admitted by opposite parties caused difficulty in hearing to the complainant. Thus hearing aid was not serving properly as revealed from the Ext.C1.
7) Since the system caused less use, the complainant caused a lawyer notice which has not been answered by the opposite parties. They admit that the complainant used to visit the clinic for servicing, repairing and accessories for hearing aid. They further contended that the hearing aid prescribed to the complainant was one of the best. This aspect has been examined in detail by the expert and it has been reported in Ext.C1 that “though the selected hearing aid with its custom receiver fitting is suitable for the complainant, a better cost effective hearing aid, could have been selected by the firm, based on the speech discrimination capabilities of the client through more testing protocols like speech audiometry and speech discrimination in noise testing”.
8) Going through the expert evidence it has been revealed that there is grave deficiency in service from the part of opposite party in providing support to the complainant to such a critical sensory organ. Furthermore, the contention of the complainant with regard to the low level performance of the hearing aid at such a higher cost stands established. Therefore, we allow this complaint to the extent limiting the first prayer as Rs.1,95,000/- as proved by Ext.P1.
In the result complaint allowed and hereby direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand only) with interest @ 9% from the date of complaint (ie 20/07/15) till realization and the opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S Ram Mohan R C.T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext.P1 the bill dated 30/04/13 amounted 1,95,000/-.
Ext.P2 the copy of lawyer notice dated 21/04/2015.
Ext.P3 the acknowledgement cards.
Id/-
Member
