Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/181/2021

Sanjay Judge - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Atulaya Healthcare - Opp.Party(s)

Rajinder Pandey

18 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/181/2021
Date of Institution	:	19/03/2021
Date of Decision	:	18/09/2023

 

Sanjay Judge, R/o Kothi No.813, Sector 43-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Atulaya Healthcare # 11 Sec 11 A, Chandigarh, through its Director.
2. Anvit Gupta, Director M/s Atulaya Healthcare # 11 Sec 11 A, Chandigarh.
3. Mamta, Manager M/s Atulaya Healthcare # 11 Sec 11 A, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Ms.Keerti Sandhu, Advocate proxy for Ms.Niharika Goel, Advocate for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant contacted OP and an appointment was sought by complainant for 14.02.2021 between 8.00 to 8.30 AM and office of OP confirmed the said appointment. Even on 14.02.2021, the complainant kept on waiting however, no sample collector came even till 10.15 AM on 14.02.2021. Thereafter, complainant contacted office of OP and was told that the sample collector is busy elsewhere, hence, could not reach even till 10.15 AM. Thereafter, OP No.3 i.e., Mamta contacted the complainant and offered apologies of the fiasco pertaining to timely sample collection and offered to give an another opportunity for Tuesday, i.e., 16.02.2021 for any time convenient to complainant and again reluctantly complainant agreed for the 9.00 to 9.30 AM slot on the i.e., 16.02.2021. However, on 16.02.2021 also no one turned up till 9.45 AM and when again complainant contacted office of OP and was told that the sample collector is busy collecting sample’s elsewhere. Despite strong assurance by OPs of timely services, thus the complainant refused to get the sample test done, doubting the genuineness and seriousness of services offered by OPs. The complainant was again called up by OP office again tendering apologies and excuses and in front of the sample collector, but complainant solely to teach a lesson stated that now sample would be given only if charges are waived off to which OP office agreed apologetically to conduct the test on complementary basis. The test report was sent by evening however, 18.02.2021, OP No.3 called complainant and sought the payment against test charges which astonished the complainant as the said test was supposed to be conducted on complementary basis. The complainant to avoid calls and harassment, made the conditional payment at 6.30 PM to driver Kulbir Singh of M/s Atulaya Healthcare sent by the laboratory against a receipt and wrote a note on the receipt by complainant under protest (Annexure C-2 & C-3). The complainant also sent a legal notice to OPs on 01.03.2021 (Annexure C-4 to C-7). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the OP on 12.02.2021, while taking the appointment, informed the complainant that due to surge in covid cases and non-availability of the staff the appointment may be shifted or be postponed without a prior notice to the complainant. The complainant was well aware of the situation and was comfortable with the same. It was also informed to the complainant that the sample collector may come a little early or could be a little late from the time slot allotted due to higher demand of sample collections, to which the complainant happily agreed. It is also stated that the sample collector reached the complainant’s address at 9.45 AM to collect the sample, the complainant then created a fuss with the sample collector for being late for 15 mins and called the OP No.1 and asked that the sample should be collected and test should be done free of cost. The OP politely apologized but denied that the free service cannot be made available. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person & learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.     Admittedly, the complainant sought an appointment for the purpose of blood testing to be done by OPs on seeing the attractive advertisement published by the OPs for the full body health checkup which as per Annexure C-1, was available for 13-14 February 2021 only. Getting attracted by the offer of the OPs, the complainant got his appointment confirmed for 14.02.2021 between 8.00 to 8.30 AM, but no sample collector came even till 10.15 AM on 14.02.2021. Again, it is an admitted fact that due to very busy schedule the sample collector could not visit the complainant for sample collection. As per written statement of OPs they tendered apologies to the complainant and gave another opportunity for 16.02.2021 and the time slot was given from 9.00 to 9.30 AM, but again on 16.02.2021 no one turned up till 9.45 AM, again it was informed that the sample collector is busy collecting sample elsewhere. Finally, on 18.02.2021 the complainant got his tests done after paying the requisite amount.
7.     Through the present complaint, the complainant is asking for the refund of the money paid for the disputed tests in question. In our opinion, the said amount cannot be refunded as the service was duly provided by the OPs, but undoubtedly the point of physical and mental harassment is to be considered. We opine that as Annexure C-1 is the document of the OPs only then it was to be honoured completely and not in parts. When they allured consumers for the tests on discounted price only for i.e. 13-14 February 2021 and non-providing the services on the aforesaid fixed dates as per their own promise, keeping the complainant in lurch waiting with the sample collector for long time without any fault of the complainant itself proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice. Any service provider who causes a false or misleading advertisement to be made which is prejudicial to the interest of consumers need to face the consequences of the same. 
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
18/09/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member