Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/385

Dr.Satish Nauhria - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Transcend Health - Opp.Party(s)

Piyush Kant Adv.

09 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 385 dated 13.08.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 09.08.2022.

 

Dr. Satish Nauhria, aged about 63 years, son of Sh.Daulat Ram Nauhria, resident of HIG 452 & 473, Sukhdev Nagar, Jamalpur Colony, Focal Point, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                                               ..…Complainant

•  

1. M/s. Transcend Health, E-107/3, Shaheen Bagh, AFE-II, Okhla, New Delhi-110025; through its Proprietor/partner(s)
2. Mr. Gulzar, Proprietor/partner of M/s. Transcend Health, E-107/3, Shaheen Bagh, AFE-II, Okhla, New Delhi-110025
3. Mr. Younus, Authorized representative, M/s. Transcend Health, E-107/3, Shaheen Bagh, AFE-II, Okhla, New Delhi-110025
4. M/s, Protocadmus Technologies Spain S.L., Masmagrell 6.46138 Rafelbunol, Valencia-Spain; through its authorized representative.

E-Maol:contact@protocadmus.com.                                                                                                                                     …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer      Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate.

For OP1 to OP3             :         Exparte.

For OP4                         ;         Complaint against OP4 already dismissed as                                                withdrawn vide order dated 25.11.2021.

 

ORDER 

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is a practicing Dermatologist with specialization in Cosmetic Dermatology and skin related Aesthetic Laser Consultant. The complainant is self employed and earning his livelihood by running a clinic under the name and style of Blossom, Skin Laser and Hair Transplant Clinic at Sukhdev Nagar, Ludhiana. It is further alleged that in November 2016, OP1 to OP3 approached the complainant for the sale of laser equipment provided multiple wavelengths of different types of lasers, which could be used in aesthetic skin treatments by the complainant. Accordingly, they presented laser platform called ProEsthetic along with a handpiece called W Switched Nd. OP4 was stated to be manufacturer of the laser equipment. It was represented to the complainant by the OPs that the laser equipment was capable of delivering unlimited laser shots and carried a warranty of one year or 5,00,000 laser shots whichever is earlier. Upon the representation of the OPs, the complainant purchased the laser equipment called ProEsthetic along with handpiece called Q Switched Nd for use at his clinic vide invoice dated 03.11.2016 for a sum of Rs.7,35,000/-.

2.                It is further alleged that the equipment purchased by the complainant from OP1 to OP3 worked only about six months from the date of its purchase. The OPs had promised that the equipment would work up to 5,00,000 laser shots whereas actually it started malfunctioning after just about 20,000 shots. As a result, no effective medical laser treatment could be given with the aid of the equipment and it became a source of embarrassment to the complainant in front of his patients as the equipment would start malfunctioning during the treatment of the patients. The complainant contacted OP3 and apprised him of the condition of the laser equipment upon which he assured the complainant that he would replace the same. However, later on OP3 started dillydallying and about a month thereafter, visited the clinic of the complainant and after checking the equipment informed the complainant that probably the equipment was not compatible for laser platform and asked the complainant to purchase another handpiece built with the latest technology in the skin treatment. OP3 further represented that the new handpiece could be compatible with the platform and the same would be sold  to the complainant at a discounted price of Rs.1,75,000/-. In this manner, the complainant was again misled into purchasing the second hand-piece from the OPs for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on the promise that the second hand piece would be compatible and would make the laser equipment  operational on which the complainant already spent a huge amount of Rs.7,35,000/-. The OPs further represented to the OPs that even second handpiece would carry a warranty of 5,00,000 shots or one year whichever is earlier. Copy of the delivery note Ex. C1 dated 11.07.2017 in respect of the second handpiece was issued. However, to the utter dismay of the complainant, even the second handpiece worked only about for a month and it also started malfunctioning like the first one. It became clear that the laser equipment sold by the OPs to the complainant was defective. In September 2017, the complainant again informed OP3 and requested him to provide a replacement of the entire equipment as it was still within the warranty period but OP1 to OP3 did not give any proper response. They neither replaced the faulty laser equipment nor refunded the cost of the equipment to the complainant. Even a legal notice dated 10.06.2019 served upon OP1 to OP3 failed to elicit a positive response from them. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the cost of the faulty laser equipments along with damages of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.                This complaint as against OP4 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.11.2021.

4.                Notice of the complaint was issued to OP1 to OP3 but they did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.

5.                In exparte evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C11 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant.

7.                In the affidavit Ex. CA, the complainant has reiterated the entire case as set forth in the complaint and has also placed on record the invoice Ex. C4 in respect of the laser equipment i.e. ProEsthetic along with handpiece called Q Switched Nd purchased by him from OP1 to OP3. Ex. C5 and Ex. C6 are the delivery notes of the said equipments and it is clearly mentioned in the delivery note that the equipment carried a warranty of 12 months from the date of installation and was warranted for 5,00,000 shots or one year which ever was earlier. As per the allegations made in the complaint, the equipments became inoperative only after 20000 shots and went out of order. When the complainant lodged a protest with the OPs, instead of rectifying the defect in the equipments, OP1 to OP3 allegedly sold another handpiece to him for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- on a representation that the same would be compatible with the main equipment and with the second handpiece, the laser equipment would also become functional. The said second handpiece is said to have been supplied to the complainant on 11.07.2017 vide delivery notes Ex. C7 and warranty card Ex. C8. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that though the complainant has claimed that he has purchased this equipment for a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- but no invoice or the receipt of Rs.1,75,000/- has been placed on the file. It has also been alleged that even after the supply of the additional equipment, the laser platform did not work and remained useless and did not serve the purpose for which the same was bought. All these facts alleged in the complaint and the supportive affidavit Ex. CA have gone unrebutted on the file and on the basis of uncontroverted evidence led by the complainant on record, it has to be held that the OPs supplied defective equipment to the complainant for a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- which was supposed to run smoothly for a year or 500000 shots whichever was earlier but the equipment did not work properly and developed some snags which were not removed even though some additional equipment was subsequently supplied by the OPs. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and in our considered view, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to take back the equipment and refund the cost of equipment of Rs.7,35,000/- along with composite costs and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with direction to the OPs to take back the equipment and refund the cost of equipment of Rs.7,35,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs are further made to pay composite costs and compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

 

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Dr. Satish Nauhria Vs Ms/ Transcend Health and others           CC/19/385 

Present:       Sh. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP1 to OP3 exparte.

                   Complaint against OP4 already dismissed as withdrawn vide order              dated 25.11.2021.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with direction to the OPs to take back the equipment and refund the cost of equipment of Rs.7,35,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The OPs are further made to pay composite costs and compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:09.08.2022.

Gobind Ram.