DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.323/2019

Dr. Devesh Jain

R/o Flat No.166,

Sector-4, Vaishali,

Ghaziabad,

Uttar Pradesh-201014

….Complainant

Versus

Clear Path Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Managing Director/CEO

C-7, South Extension, Part-1,

New Delhi-110049

     ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :  21.11.2019     

 Date of Order            :  23.07.2024     

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       Succinctly put, complainant placed an order for Aligners for his patient with Clear Path Health Care Services Pvt Ltd., hereinafter referred to as OP. Complainant paid an amount of Rs.27,000/- as an advance to OP on 22.05.2019.

2.       It is stated that OP had assured the complainant that delivery of the Aligners shall be made within two weeks and remaining amount shall be received from the complainant on the date of delivery. It is further stated that OP supplied the said Aligners in the first week of July, 2019 but the same were not up to the mark. The upper Aligners did not fit the patient and the complainant had to take impression of the patient again. Attendant of the patient physically visited the laboratory of OP and handed over the ‘new impression’ on 08.07.2019.

3.       Thereafter, complainant approached OP number of times for the said Aligners but OP made various excuses and avoided the requests made by the complainant. It is stated that delivery of the Aligners was lingered on by OP on one pretext or another due to which complainant suffered huge monetary loss as well as loss of reputation in the society.

4.       Aggrieved by the circumstances above, complainant prays for direction to OP to refund Rs.27,000/- with interest @18% p.a; to pay Rs.50,000/- for loss of mental peace, Rs,50,000/- for damaging the social reputation and sum of Rs. 50,000/- for damaging the reputation as a dentist.

5.       Despite service, none appeared on behalf of OP, therefore, OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 23.08.2022.  Exparte evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainant. Submissions made on behalf of complainant are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

 6.      The only document filed by the complainant in support of his case is the Account Statement of the complainant, wherein it can be seen that Rs.27,000/- was paid to OP on 28.05.2019. It is not clear  whether after receiving the Aligners full/complete payment was made ,   whether second time the Aligners fitted  the complainant properly or not .  Many questions have been left unanswered. Averments made by the complainant have not been substantiated. Bald averments without any substantive evidence have no value in the eyes of law. This Commission is of the view, complainant has failed to establish his case.

7.       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

8.       In light of the discussion above, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.