BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 256/2011 Filed on 06.08.2011
Dated : 16.08.2012
Complainant :
Ajitha Jayakumar, T.C 23/927, Jayanivas, Valiyasala, Thiruvananthapuram – 36.
(Party in person)
Opposite party :
Chaithanya Eye Hospital & Research Institute, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. G. Pratheep)
This O.P having been heard on 27.07.2012, the Forum on 16.08.2012 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Complainant's daughter was prescribed contact lens on 02.09.2010 and as per the assurance given by the opposite party regarding the quality of the lens, complainant had paid Rs. 1,750/- and ordered the lens on 14.09.2010. At the last week of September the lens were dispensed to her. Even at the time of fixing the lens it was felt irritating to the complainant's daughter, then the opposite party told her that it will be normalized after some days' use. But the irritation became worse day by day and complainant informed the matter to the opposite party and opposite party examined the lens and found the lens was torn. On the request of the complainant, opposite party replaced the torn lens with new lens after one month. Complainant alleges that opposite party was given the same lens to them believing them it is new lens. Thereafter the replaced lens was also torn. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and demanded to replace the torned lens. But the opposite party was not heard the demand of the complainant. According to the complainant, opposite party sold them low quality lens to them for a higher price. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
Opposite party filed a detailed version contending the entire allegations levelled against them. Complainant's daughter was prescribed contact lens on 13.09.2010 and the lens were dispensed to her on 14.09.2010, after it was found that lens were acceptable and fit for her. On 05.02.2011 nearly after five months the patient came with the complaint that the contact lens in her right eye is torn. She wanted replacement of the torn lens which was dispensed about 5 months back. If there is any defect in the lens it can be known within two days use. But there was no complaint. The alleged damage to the lens was caused solely due to the faulty handling of lens. But the opposite party took this case as a special case and pleaded with the supplier and they reluctantly agreed to give a replacement. The torn lens was sent back to the supplier company and replacement received was dispensed to her on 05.03.2011. Again after one month in April 2011, the complainant telephoned that the contact lens of the left eye dispensed to her daughter on 14.09.2010 is torn and she wanted replacement of it. Opposite party stated that since the demand is totally unacceptable they refused a replacement. She was told that a contact lens which was used by the patient fore more than 6 months cannot be replaced by any stretch of imagination. Due to mishandling or rough use the lens were damaged. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the petition.
Complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavits and examined them as PW1 and DW1. From the side of complainant 11 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P11. From the side of opposite party Ext. D1 series marked.
Points to be ascertained:
Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite party.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
Costs.
Points (i) to (iii):- Complainant had purchased the contact lens for her daughter in accordance with the prescription of the opposite party on 14.09.2010. The price of the lens was Rs. 1,750/-. At the time of selecting the contact lens opposite party assured the complainant about the quality of the lens. Complainant's daughter has been using the lens since 2000 on opposite party's prescription. But within a short period of time the lens in the right eye became damaged and the opposite party replaced the lens with a new one. Thereafter within one month the left eye's lens of the complainant's daughter became damaged and they informed the matter to the opposite party, then the opposite party refused the demand of the complainant for replacement. Complainant alleges that the opposite party had given low quality lens to them for a higher price. At the time of purchase the opposite party assured the complainant that the lens can be used for two years. But the lens were torn within 6 months. The contention of the opposite party is that mishandling or rough use was the reason for the damage. To prove her contention complainant has filed proof affidavit and she was examined as PW1. From her side 11 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P11. Ext. P1 is the registration card issued by the opposite party in the name of Karthiyani Devi (complainant's daughter) dated 15.05.2000. This document shows that she was their customer since 2000. Ext. P2 is the registration card issued by the opposite party on 14.09.2010. Ext. P3 is the registration card issued on 02.09.2010. Ext. P4 is the cash receipt dated 10.07.2000 issued by the opposite party for the purchase of CLS (2 pairs) for an amount of Rs. 2,500/-. Ext. P7 is the instruction for handling of soft contact lenses issued along with Ext. P4 purchase. Complainant states that as per this instruction the complainant's daughter has been using the contact lens since 2000 onwards. Hence there is no question regarding mishandling of lens. Exts. P9 and P10 are the prescription of lens. Ext. P11 is the instructions for using lens. Through these documents the complainant has almost proved her case. Complainant alleged that opposite party did not issue the bill at the time of purchase of the lens. But in this case the opposite party never denied the purchase of the lens or price of the lens. Hence we admit the price of the lens mentioned in the complaint, i.e; Rs. 1,750/-. Opposite party has produced the case sheet as Ext. D1 series. There is no dispute regarding the consultation of the patient or prescription of lens. Opposite party has admitted that the lenses were supplied by them to the complainant. There is no doubt that the lenses were damaged within 6 months of its purchase. The price of the lenses was Rs. 1,750/-. Hence we find that due to the inferior quality of the lens, the lens became damaged within 6 months. The contention of the opposite party that the lens became damaged due to the mishandling of the user is not sustainable. Opposite party also admitted that complainant's daughter has been using lens since 2000 and she is the customer of the opposite party since 2000. Hence we find that the lens never became torn or damaged due to the mishandling of the complainant's daughter. Complainant has purchased the lens on 14.09.2010 and used the lens only for 6 months. Comparing the price of the lens, it is a short time use. Hence we find that there is unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. In this case, opposite party has neither issued the bill to the complainant nor produced the duplicate copy of the bill or mentioned about the manufacturer of the lens before this Forum. From the above mentioned discussions we find that there is unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,500/- (after deducting Rs. 250/- as depreciation for 6 months use) to the complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry 9% annual interest till the date of realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of August 2012.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 256/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Ajitha Jayakumar
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Registration card issued in the name of Karthiyani Devi dated
15.05.2000.
P2 - Registration card issued in the name of Gayathri Devi dated
14.09.2010.
P3 - Registration card issued in the name of Karthiyani Devi dated
02.09.2010.
P4 - Cash receipt dated 10.07.2000 issued by opposite party.
P5 - Prescription dated 03.03.2001 issued by opposite party.
P6 - Lens prescription dated 15.05.2000 issued by opposite party
P7 - Instruction for handling of soft contact lenses insertion.
P8 - Bill dated 02.09.2010 for Rs. 200/- issued by opposite party
P9 - Lens prescription dated 14.09.2010 issued by opposite party.
P10 - Lens prescription dated 14.09.2010 issued by opposite party.
P11 - User Manual issued by Silklens
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - Sreejish Kumar. K.P
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Patient record issued in the name of Karthiyani Devi.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
