D.o.F:04/10/2010

D.o.O:11/5/2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC 205/2010

                     Dated this, the 11th   day of May 2011

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                        : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                        : MEMBER 

Sachidananda Institute of Medical Science

Anandashram.Po,Kanhangad,Kasaragod

 represented by its Chairman Dr.M.R.Nambiar                  : Complainant

(Adv.A.Radhakrishnan,Hosdurg)

1.The Branch Manager,

Susrutta Agencies(MAS)P.Ltd,

Door No.X/126/C,TC 32-32-1512,

Kannamkulangara, Koorkencherry,Po,

Thrissur-680007,

2.Manager, Susruta Agencies(MAS)P.Ltd,                          : Opposite parties

Head Office, Old No.2/3 New No.7,

Musa Street, T.Nagar,Chennai-600017.

(Exparte)

                                                                         ORDER

 SMT.BEENA.K.G       : MEMBER 

Gist of the complaint is that the complainant Sachidananda Institute of Medical Science  represented by Dr.M.R.Nambiar who is the Chairman and one of the  prominent and senior most Orthopedic Surgeon in the District  purchased Alice Hemo Dialysis Medicina sterilled Medical Machinery  worth  ` 930,000/- from the opposite parties as per  TCR1546 dtd 11/1/08.  The said machine frequently faced technical  and non technical problems which were attended and solved by the opposite parties then and there.  Complainant raised  their resentment over  the frequent fault in functioning of the machine, the  opposite party substituted another machine TINA in the month of June 2009 by claiming  the same  as new one.  The old machine which they supplied  one year back was not taken back as it is beyond  repair and worthless .According to the complainant TINA was also faced technical defects which were repaired by opposite parties 8 times within one year.  After the last service on 9/3/10 the said Dialysis machine is not properly functioning on account of the malfunctioning of the  device the patients under treatment  faced very critical situations endangering their life on different occasions.  According to the complainant due to the irregular functioning of the machine the image and goodwill of the institution adversely affected very much.   This was  brought to the notice of opposite parties.  But they did not care to solve this problem.  Hence the complaint.

2.   Notice to opposite parties issued by registered post with acknowledgment  due.  But the notices were returned unserved for the reasons’ not known’  and left without instruction.  Hence paper publication  was made against opposite parties.  But opposite parties 1&2 remained absent even after publication of notice.  Hence opposite parties have to be set exparte.

3.   Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Exts.A1 to A4 marked.

4.  Points arise for consideration are:-

   1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

   2. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

  3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

  4. If so what order as to relief and costs?

5.  Point No.1:  Complainant purchased the Dialysis machine for ` 9,30,000/- and it is not using for any  commercial purpose.  Of course they are consumers.

6.  Point No.2:   Sachidananda Institute of Medical Science  (SIMS) Anandashram Po,Kanhangad Kasaragod is functioning within  the jurisdiction  of this Forum and the machine is installed and damaged from the Hospital. Hence atleast part of cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Forum.

7. Point No3.  A close study on Exts.A2 series, documents produced by the complainant  makes it clear that the opposite parties replaced the parts of the machine twice within one year from the date of sale.  Ext.A2 clearly shows the act of  opposite parties was unfair trade practice based on profit motive.  A defective dialysis machine when supplied to a Hospital may  endanger the life of patients.  The opposite parties should have resorted fair trade practice while supplying machinery to a  hospital.  Hence we hold that opposite parties committed deficiency in  service  and  unfair trade practice and therefore they are liable to compensate to the complainant.

8. Relief & Costs:  Complainant is the Chairman of SIMS Hospital and one of the prominent Orthopedic Surgeon  in the district.  Malfunctioning  of the Dialysis machine purchased from the opposite parties caused mental agony and damages to him.  According to the complainant the repeated repairs caused inconvenience to doctors and  badly affected the reputation and goodwill of the institution very much.  In such circumstances we feel that they are entitled  for a reasonable compensation which we fix ` 25000/-.

   In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties  are jointly and severally directed to pay a compensation of ` 25000/- together  with a cost of  `2000/-  The opposite parties are further directed to replace a  brand new, defect free dialysis machine instead of the existing old machine to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.  Failing which opposite parties shall further  liable to pay interest @12% for  ` 25000/- from the date of complaint till payment.

Exts:

A1-11/1/08-copy of invoice

A2 series- copy of  service call reports

A3-4/9/10- copy of lawyer notice

A4 series- unclaimed notices

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT

eva