IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/217/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
20.12.17 02.01.18 06.11.19
Complainant: Saiful Sk.
S/o Late Kader Sk.
Vill&PO-Nagrajol, PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742102
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager/Proprieter
Hearing Care
Berhampore Speech and Hearing Clinic
40, R.N. Tagore Road, Laldighi
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101
2. Dr. Raju Mandal
Hearing Care
Berhampore Speech and Hearing Clinic
40, R.N. Tagore Road, Laldighi
PO&PS-Berhampore,
Dist-Murshidabad, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Prashanta Kumar Singha.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : In Person.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : None.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay, Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Saiful Sk. (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Prop. Hearing Care and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The minor daughter of the Complainant was suffering from hearing loss from the year since 2009. The NRS Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata had undergone surgical operation in the year 2010. In the year 2016, the said minor daughter has lost her ability to hear totally and she was taken to the Murshidabad medical College and Hospital for treatment but no improvement was found. on 17.04.17 the Complainant with her daughter went to the chamber of Dr. Raju Mondal ( OP No.2) for treatment. The said OP No.1 suggested some test and the same has been done at Berhampore Speech and Hearing Clinic (OP No.1). After perusal of all reports doctor suggested to use hearing aid which the Complainant purchased from OP No.1. But on using the said hearing aid the daughter of the Complainant could not able to hear anything and on giving the information to the OP No.2 the said doctor (OP No.2) opines that it would take some time to be adjusted. But till date the problem of hearing of the minor daughter of the Complainant has not been cured. Time and again the Complainant visited both OP No. 1 and 2 but all went in vein. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Forum for appropriate relief.
After service of the notice the OP No.1 appeared by filing W/V contending inter alia that due to water and pus in ear the sound from the machine has not entered in the ear of the daughter of the Complainant and there is no defect in the machine and the machine covers warranty for one year and if any defects in the machine arises they are bound to replace the same. So, there is no deficiency on their part and the case is liable to be dismissed.
The OP No.2 after service of the notice did not turn up, so the case proceeded ex-parte against the OP No.2.
On the basis of the above version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for consideration
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
Decision with reason
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of Complainant, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as she hired services of the OPs for consideration.
Undoubtedly, the daughter of the Complainant was suffering of the problem of hearing loss and she was treated by the doctors of NRS Medical College and Hospital and Berhampore Medical College and Hospital. But no improvement was found. Later on 17.04.17, the Complainant went to the chamber of Dr. Raju Mondal (OP No.2) for treatment of his daughter. The said OP No.2 suggested some test and the same has been done at Berhampore Speech and Hearing Clinic (OP No.1). The Complainant stated that after perusal of reports the OP No.2 suggested to use ‘hearing aid’ and as per advise of the doctor the Complainant purchased the hearing aid but the daughter of the Complainant could not able to hear anything and it was reported to the OP No.2 and the said OP No.2 stated that it would take some time to be adjusted but till date no improvement was found and both the OPs provided several excuses.
The OP No.1informed the complainant that due to water and pus in ear the sound from the machine has not entered in the ear of the daughter of the Complainant and there was no defect in the machine and the machine covers warranty for one year and if any defects in the machine arises they are bound to replace the same.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and documents filed before us, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for selling hearing aids to the daughter of the Complainant. The OP No.1 sold the hearing aids to the Complainant on consideration of Rs.19,000/-. It is of no use to the daughter of the Complainant, so we are of the opinion that OP No.1 should take back the hearing aid within one month and for this the Complainant is entitled to receive back the purchase value of hearing aid of Rs.19,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 20.12.17 and admitted on 02.01.18 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day order.
Fees paid are correct.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint Case No. CC/217/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 with cost and dismissed ex-parte against OP No.2 but without cost.
The OP No.1 is directed to take back the hearing aid supplied to the Complainant within one month from the date of this order.
The Complainant is also directed to return the hearing aids supplied by the OP No.1 within one month.
The OP No.1 is further directed to return the sum of Rs.19,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within 45 days from the date of this order.
If the aforesaid order is not complied within 45 days from the date of this order, it shall carry Rs.50/- per day payable to the Complainant till its realisation.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member President.
