Haryana

Panchkula

CC/60/2015

HEM RAJ KHURANA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S NUGA MEDICAL INDIA PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                   

Consumer Complaint No	:	60 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.08.2015

Hem Raj Khurana, aged 74 years, s/o Sh.Jesa Ram, R/o House No.462, Sector-4, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Nuga Medical India Pvt. Ltd., A-76, Sector-83, Opp. NSEZ, Phase-II, Noida, U.P.-201305 thorugh its Managing Director.

2.       Nuga Best Health Center, SCO No.206, 1^st Floor, Near Bata Show Room, Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.A.C.Chaudhary, Adv., for the complainant. 

Ms.Anuradha Sohal, Adv., for the Ops.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that the Ops were circulating and advertising through pamphlets with the heading “Free Therapy-Nuga Best Ke Chamatkar”. It has also been printed on the Pamphlet that Nuga Best Accupressure Machine gave Thermal Therapy with the help of Farinfra Rays generated by the machine which helped in Accupressure, Moxibustion, Chiropractic collectively and also cured the diseases like Migraine, Thyroid, Heart problem, Asthma, knee pain, back pain, sugar, B.P., piles cancer paralysis skin disease, Cervical etc. in natural way without taking any medicine, injection and without any side effect (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, the complainant visited the office of Op No.2 and enquired about the treatment of back pain, knee pain and spinal problem etc. The staff of the center and Mr.Lakhwinder Sharma- incharge of the Nuga Best Center told the complainant about the benefits and uses of the Nuga Best Accupressure Machine and Belt and they also gave him the pamphlet wherein the detailed benefits and uses of the machine were given. The Op No.2 advised the complainant to get free therapy through that machine daily and which was also given to the complainant on that day for about 40 minutes and also advised the complainant to visit the center daily for free therapy. The complainant started going to the center of Op No.2 for therapy daily for a period of 40 minutes for which he had to stay there for about four to five hours daily. The complainant took therapy treatment about three months. The complainant told Sh.Lakhwinder Sharms that it was not possible for the complainant to spare four to five hours daily for the therapy who advised the complainant to purchase the Nuga Best Accupressure Machine which could be operated upon at home and the complainant will not have to come to the center for treatment. After some days, the complainant booked the NM-4000 Accupressure machine and paid Rs.50,000/- through cheque drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad (Annexure C-2) on 21.03.2014. The complainant used to come daily for therapy in the center of Op No.2 and gave another cheque of Rs.40,000/- on 30.04.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sector-11, Panchkula. Thereafter, the complainant gave third cheque of Rs.30,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank in the second week of May, 2014 and the OP No.2 issued retail invoice No.6 (Annexure C-3) dated 09.05.2014 of Rs.1,29,000/- as cost of Nuga Best NM-4000 Medical Machine and Nuga Best NM-90 Medical Equipment. The Op No.2 also installed the abovesaid machine at the house of the complainant in the second week of May, 2014. After using the machine for about two months, the complainant felt more pain in his knees & back and also developed pain in chest instead of feeling relief. The complainant visited the General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula and after examination, the complainant was admitted in the Hospital on 01.09.2014 and treated for chest pain upto 05.09.2014. The complainant had to spend about Rs.5200/- on medicines and other diagnostic charges (Annexure C-4). Thereafter, the complainant did not use the said machine. The complainant requested many times to the Op No.2 to take back the machine and return the price of the machine paid by him but to no avail. The complainant also wrote a letter (Annexure C-5) dated 08.01.2015 to the Ops but in vain. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the Ops filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that after having attachment lectures and having received instructions regarding the booking and use of Nuga Model 1 acknowledged the trustworthiness and benefit of booking. It is submitted that the customer is bound to obey the following terms & conditions:-
   1. Goods once sold will not be exchanged or taken back. Booking will not be canceled or refunded. Only in special case, if customer request the cancellation within 3 days after booking. Then only 50% of your booking amount will be refunded by company rule.
   2. The rest balance must be paid before above delivery date. If not, this case will be concerned booking cancel.
   3. All sales are final, no return or no refunds (refund only in condition No.2).

It is submitted that the terms and conditions of sales were duly accepted and signed by the complainant. It is submitted that after purchasing the bed, the complainant used the same for more than one year without any problem. It is submitted that after completing therapy sessions, the complainant himself wished to purchase the bed as he could not come to the center for long time. It is submitted that the Ops had ready the bed for delivery to the complainant and the bed was prepared as per specific requirement of the complainant and it was precondition of delivery that ‘Goods once sold will not be exchanged or takenback’. It is submitted that as per complainant’s own version, he took treatment for back pain, knee pain and spinal problem whereas the treatment card attached by the complainant with the present complaint is for treatment of heart problem. It is submitted that the complainant was given therapy for required period. It is submitted that the complainant wished to purchase the bed as he was happy with the therapy in the centre and working of the bad and the complainant was feeling much relief. It is submitted that daily people shared their experiences in the centre in the class. It is submitted that the complainant booked the bed after enquiring about the cost of product. It is submitted that there was no nexsus between working of bed and problem of the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant never requested for refund nor the Op received any letter. It is submitted that after taking therapy in the centre as he was cured by therapy and medicines were reduced and the complainant was feeling better than earlier. It is submitted that the complainant never complained about any complication after use of bed at the centre. It is submitted that the complainant failed to show that heart problem was due to use of bed. It is submitted that the doctors have not mentioned that problem was being occurred due to use of bed. It is submitted that till date thousands of patients were using the bed but having no complications and never turned up with any problem occurred due to use of bed. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The complainant has tendered in evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered in evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed their evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. Undisputedly, the complainant purchased a bed for Rs.1,29,000/- vide bill/invoice No.6 dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure C-3) after taking regular therapy on NUGA BEST NM4000 (a bed). After having regular therapy on the bed, the complainant felt more pain in his knees & back and also in chest instead of feeling relief. The complainant got admitted in General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula for chest pain and had spent Rs.5200/- on medicines and other diagnostic charges (Annexure C-4). The complainant requested the Op No.2 to refund the amount of the machine but they did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant also wrote a letter (Annexure C-5) dated 08.01.2015 to the Ops but to no avail.
6. On the other hand, the Ops submitted that the complainant visited the centre of Ops. After purchasing the bed, the complainant used it for more than one year without any problem. After taking regular therapy in the centre, the complainant himself wished to purchase the bed and the bed was prepared as per his specific requirements as the complainant himself admitted that he took treatment for back pain, knee pain and spinal problem. It is submitted that it was precondition of delivery that ‘Goods once sold will not be exchanged or takenback’. It is submitted that the complainant never requested for refund nor the Ops have received any letter. The complainant did not make any complaint about any complication after use of bed at the centre.
7. As the complainant in his complaint has averred that he visited centre of Ops and told them he took the therapy for back pain, knee pain and spinal pain. From the assurance of the Ops, the complainant took regular therapy of NUGA BEST NM4000 daily. After spending long time in the centre, the complainant purchased a bed for Rs.1,29,000/- vide bill/invoice No.6 dated 09.05.2014 (Annexure C-3). After having regular therapy, the complainant suffered chest pain and also got admitted in the General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula and had spent Rs.5200/- on medicines.
8. From the above, it is clear that the complainant was suffering from various ailments before the purchase of bed in question. The complainant has failed to produce any document which proves that he suffered from chest pain (heart attack) due to use of abovesaid bed. The doctors have also not mentioned in the prescription slip (Annexure C-4) that chest pain occurred due to use of bed.
9. In view of the above observation, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence and failed to prove the alleged deficiency in service of the Ops. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

04.08.2015                    ANITA KAPOOR                             DHARAM PAL

                                      MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

    

                                 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          PRESIDENT