Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/81/2016

Dr. Sandhya Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mindray. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R.P. Kuar

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 81/2016

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Dr. Sandhya Kar,

W/O-Dr. Debasis Behera.

Proprietor-Aruna Shakti Hospital, Regd No. 1120/2008

Certificate No. ISO-9001-2008,

At-Pandit Laxminarayan Lane, 

PO/Dist-Samblapur, Odisha.                                         ………..…..Complainant

 

Vrs.

1. Mindray

Mindray Building, Keji-12^th Road South

High-Tech Industrial Park, Nan Shan,

Shenzhen-518057, PR China.

2. Hospital Supply Company Pvt.Ltd.

III-Chittaranjan Avenue Kolkata-700073, West Bengal.

3. Mr. A.Venkat Ayengar(Sr. Manager)

Hospital Supply Company Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 185, Bapuji Nagar,

Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-751009.………..Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. R.P.Kuar, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.s                                 :- Sri. P.K.Mishra, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:03.10.2016,Date of Hearing :XXXXX, Date of Judgement : 18.10.2022

           Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant and her husband Dr. Debasis Behera are practicing doctors and the O.P. No.1 is a manufacturing unit  in China and the products are marketed through O.P. no.2 & 3 in India. Since 2004-05 the Complainant using the product Model No. DP-1100, DP-6000, DP-9900. The Complainant placed order for purchasing DC-N3, M/C Sl. No. 6D-56003465, Probe-3C-5A, Sl. No. M/K-55/44926 Probe-TVS B-104B, Sl. No. NDA-17000770 Model –D-6-2PCD35001031 through authorised agent O.P. No.2 and made advance payment of Rs. 2.00lakhs by cheque No. 00029 dated 01.09.2015 of Bank of Baroda, Sambalpur for full and final payment to-wards the machine. The O.P. No.2 & 3 supplied the machine but did not perform the installation.

The Complainant through Bank Finance purchased the ULTRA SONOGRAPHY machine and through Brochure influenced the Complainant but while using the machine found poor resolution, poor image quality and deficient to diagnostic applications. The machine did not yield any resolution/image in case of fatty man. Grievance was made to O.P. No.2 & 3 telephonically.

Service engineer Mr. Chandan Dutta On 22.03.2016 came and detected poor resolution quality and assured for rectification. In the service report dated 22.03.2016 Dr. Debasis Behera noted the fact. The defects are not rectified and officials of O.P. No.3 threatened the Complainant’s husband, refused to provide service in further complaint.

The O.P. No.2 & 3 submitted conflicting reports and described the particulars of machine differently in different documents supplied to the Complainant. In letter dated 15.09.2015 O.P.No.3 described the supplied machine as Probe V104B Sl. No. NDA-17000770 but in service report as Prob. 3C5A Sl. No. MCK 55144926 and in report dated 22.03.2016 as Probe 3C5A Sl. No. M.K.-55744925. As risk factor was involved  and no reliance  can be made in such conflicting documents, it was reported to rectify the defects but the O.Ps did not respond. An Advocate notice was sent to the O.Ps but the O.P. No.2 & 3 remained silent. The machine became a liability to the Complainant.

2. The O.P. No.2 & 3 appeared through their attorney N. Venkat Ayangar and submitted their version. The O.Ps admitted the fact of Supply of machine at price Rs. 6.00lakhs and installed fulfilling legal formalities. The machine is purchased for commercial purpose and the case is not maintainable. The machine supplied is in accordance with the brochure. The O.Ps have provided proper service in time. The service engineer attended the machine on 22.03.2016, 19.09.2016 and 26.10.2016. The threating made to Dr. Debasis Behera as alleged is denied and the O.Ps are ready to give service in time. The O.Ps admitted the fact of receipt of Advocate notice and denied the fact of deficiency in service and also defects in the machine.
3. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. The O.Ps have received Rs.6.00lakhs to-wards cost of ultrasound machine (DC-N3) and V.Venkat Ayengar Sr. Manager granted receipt No. 15.09.2015. The Complainant after availing loan from Bank of Baroda paid the amount through financing Bank vide D.D. No. 426478 dated 01.09.2015and letter dated 01.09.2015. The Complainant has paid advance amount of Rs. 2.00lakhs vide cheque No. 000269 dated 08.07.2015 Bank of Baroda. The O.Ps have granted receipt dated 08.07.2015 to-wards cost of machine Rs.8.00lakhs Brochure has been launched by the O.Ps DC-N3 Mindray colour Doppler system. The guarantee provided in the brochure are spatial compounding imaging and phase shift imaging, compatible with up to 10 transducers. It covers 4D imaging, Smart OB function, Phase shift Harmonic imaging, iclear/ibeam, tissue Doppler imaging, Auto IMT (Intima-Media Thickness) etc. The service report dated 19.09.2019 speaks up in the name of Arun Shakti Hospital, Sambalpur service Engineer Jayant Maity reported for the machine Dc-N₃ Sl. No. 56003465, probe 3C5A under warranty fault has been detected. The engineer reported no echo signal in ultrasonic image region and found fully black on scan area. Corrective taken were change the convex probe (3C5A) and remarks given no satisfactory resolution Wrote “ Not suitable for practicing and need urgent replacement.”

No documents have been filed by the O.Ps.

4. After perusal of the complaint, version of the O.Ps and documents filed, the following issue are framed:

 

103606587.  

1. Whether the Complainant has purchased the ultra Sonography machine for commercial activities and a consumer of the O.Ps?
2. Have the O.Ps supplied defective machine and are deficient in providing service?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get from the O.Ps?

Issue No.1 Whether the Complainant has purchased the ultra Sonography machine for commercial activities and a consumer of the O.Ps?

          The Complainant in her version submitted that she is a practicing doctor having a clinic at Pandit Laxmi Narayana Lane Sambalpur town and her husband Dr. Debasis Behera is also a practicing doctor. The Complainant availed Bank Finance from Bank of Baroda, Sambalpur Branch in order of cater her needs and earning. For self employment both the wife and husband running Arun Shakti Nursing Home. The allegation of the O.Ps that the Complainant has purchased the machine for commercial activities and not a consumer. The Machine has been used for speedy diagnostic service to the patients. The O.Ps have not filed a single document showing that the Complainant has other sources of earning. As the Complainant has only source of earning from the diagnostic centre her activities can not be termed as commercial activities. As a doctor the Complainant is providing service to the patients and the machine supplied is essential for diagnosis I am to hold that the Complainant is a consumer of the O.Ps by paying Rs. 8.00lakhs for the purchase.

          Accordingly, the issue is answered.

Issue No.2 Have the O.Ps supplied defective machine and are deficient in providing service?

          The Complainant on 01.09.2015 paid the full and final consideration for the ultra Sonography machine totaling Rs. 8.00lakhs and Mr. N.Venkat Ayegar Sr. Manager acknowledge draft No. 426478 Ultrasound machine(DC-N3) with complex, T.V.S. & volume probe machine. “Through Bank of Baroda Bank the payment was made after obtaining loan. The loan has been disbursed on 01.09.2015. On 22.03.2016 as per complaint of the Complainant Er. Mr. Chandan Dutta attended the machine for rectification of defects when poor resolution quality was detected and to give a standard accuracy result. The Complainant has filed the service report dated 19.09.2016 only and no other service report has been filed. In the other hand the O.Ps have not filed any documentary evidence showing the service provided. Within a period of 01.09.2015 to 19.09.2016 the machine found defective and under warranty terms.

          The service Engineer Jayanta Maity in his service report categorically mentioned the faults “ No echo signal in ultrasonic image region. Fully black on scan area.” The engineer mentioned the corrective action “need to change the convex probe(3C5A). Machine working alright No satisfactory resolution is found………………” The customer commented that not suitable for practicing. Need urgent replacement.” From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the machine was not at all suitable for diagnostic purpose. The O.Ps have not filed any documents in this regard that the machine has manufacturing competency, rather the service engineer opined the defects and rectification made. Since 19.09.2016 the machine is not in workable condition. The O.P.s in their version stated that “ it seems the Complainant perhaps ordered for a model not suiting her necessity and when she came across her own mistake, she is trying to forcing press upon the opposite parties to get the same replaced.”

          The O.Ps have not provided satisfactory service to the Complainant which proves from the service report dated 19.09.2016. The O.Ps have not stated a single words the workable condition of the machine after 19.09.2016.

          The Complainant issued an Advocate notice but the copy of the notice has not been filed. The O.Ps at para-7 of the version admitted the receipt of the notice. Further the O.Ps stated that on several occasion attended the machines of the Complainant at call of the Complainant. When the O.Ps attended the machine several times, what compelled them not to file the service report is a point of consideration. The machine was defective and to provide service the O.Ps attended several times but could not satisfy the Complainant.

          From the supra discussion it is clear that the machine was defective and to rectify the defects the O.Ps attended several times but the matter was not resolved.

          The issue is answered against the O.Ps.

Issue No.3 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get from the O.Ps?

For a doctor diagnostic machines should be faultless to provide quicker and accurate service to the patients. The O.Ps failed to prove that the supplied machine is faultless. Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly, it is ordered:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the defective machine and deficiency in service. The O.Ps are directed to replace the ultrasound machine with new same specification machine within one month of this order, failing which the O.Ps have to pay Rs. 8.00lakhs cost of the machine with 12% P.A. w.e.f. 15.09.2015 till realisation. As deficiency in service the O.Ps are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3.00lakhs. In case of non payment, the entire amount will carry 15% interest P.A. till realisation. The O.Ps are to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000.

                   Order pronounced in open court on this 18^th day of October 2022.

                   Supply free copies to the parties.