CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.415/2013
SH. MOHAN LAL MALLA
R/O B-2, PAMPOSH ENCLAVE(GK-I)
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S SAHARA SPEECH & HEARING CLINIC
(ATTN: SH. AKHILESH KUMAR)
K-9A, KALKAJI, NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order: 22.07.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav, President
The case of the complainant is that for improving his audibility, he approached the OP for audiography and supply of suitable hearing aids to him and he was advised to purchase two RG-RESOUND DOT 2 Digital Hearing Aids (open fit). The test of the two hearing aids was given to the complainant in the clinic’s sound proof room where conditions are ideal for clarity in the reception of speech and filtered sound. Complainant purchased the two hearing aid instruments on 26.08.2011 with a warranty of two years and made the full payment of Rs.47,500/-.
It is further stated that on use of the two hearing aids under normal conditions(non sound proof conditions), the sound is magnified with irritants with partial or no clarity of speech received. It is difficult to comprehend from which direction the sound is coming which is a cause of embarrassment and great risk of a fatal accident while on road. The matter was brought to the notice of OP and the complainant was told that it takes some time for the brain to adjust to the new equipment(hearing aids) and the clarity in reception of speech would improve gradually with the passage of time with filtered sound. On advice of OP complainant visited the clinic of OP over dozens of times for programming of the hearing aids with the hope of improvement in his hearing but with no success.
It is further stated that by supplying unsuitable hearing aids and not improving his audibility, the OP has exposed his life and security to grave risk whether at home or elsewhere especially on road. Complainant wrote three speed post letters dated 04.05.12, 08.06.12 and 03.09.12 to the OP seeking advice and relief. Vide letter dated 03.09.12 complainant requested OP to take back the two hearing aids from him and refund the amount of the same i.e. Rs.47500/- alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. but there has been no response to his letters till date. Thereafter complainant visited the OP at their clinic on 26.06.13 where Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, managing the clinic, used abusive language and was on the point of assaulting him. The matter was reported to the Kalkaji Police Station on 27.06.2013. Complainant finally wrote a registered AD post letter dated 12.07.13 to OP asking them to refund the sum of Rs.47500/- to complainant immediately and take back the two hearing aids from him but there has been no response to this letter till date. It is prayed that OP be directed to return the price of the two hearing aids i.e. Rs.47,500/- alognwith interest @ 15% p.a., Rs.1 lakh for compensation and Rs.10,000/- for expenses towards transport, communication etc.
OP in the reply took the plea that the present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as manufacturer of the product is a necessary party. It is further stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP nor there was any unfair trade practice. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
It is further stated that after consultation and detailed briefing, the complainant had opted for digital hearing aid. The hearing aid takes time to adjust and its performance depends on several things like, age, health, life style etc of the person. Complainant had tested different types of hearing aids to judge which instrument was more suitable to him and after being satisfied with the product, the complainant opted the particular product. Thereafter the fitting and programming of the device was done by the OP and after being satisfied with the product, the complainant had made the final payment.
It is further stated that the OP had explained in details to the complainant about the complete procedure of use of the device including advantages and its limitations. Complainant was told that such devices are helpful to improve the hearing capacity but in no way a substitute of replacement of natural ears. He was clearly told that the devices work on the functions/signal of nerves and brains and any change in the level of the same will cause the problem in the hearing. Complainant was told to wear it on regular basis so that the device gets adjusted with the signal/level of nerves and brain functions.
It is further stated that whenever complainant had complained about the about the problem in the hearing, he was always attended with full possible support and his device was reprogrammed due to change in it. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
So far as non joinder of manufacturer is concerned, it is significant to note that the complainant has purchased the hearing aids from the OP and OP has given a warranty of two years. It is significant to note that the complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that on use of the two hearing aids under normal conditions, the sound is magnified with irritants with partial or no clarity of speech received. It is difficult to comprehend from which direction the sound is coming which is a cause of embarrassment and great risk of a fatal accident while on road. It is specifically stated by the complainant that he visited the clinic of the OP over dozens of times for programming of the two hearing aids with the hope of improvement in his hearing but with no success. He has written letters dated 04.05.12, 08.06.12 and 03.09.12 to the OP bringing it to the notice of OP about the defect in the device. It is evident from the complaint that the device was not functioning properly and there was no clarity of the speech and the sound magnified with irritants and after not getting response from OP, he personally visited the clinic of OP on 26.06.13 but he was ill-treated and he reported the matter to police on 22.06.13.
OP is trying to take the shelter that the it takes some time for the brain to adjust to the new equipment(hearing aids) and that the complainant was told that such devices are helpful to improve the hearing capacity but in no way a substitute of replacement of natural ears and he was clearly told that the devices work on the functions/signal of nerves and brains and any change in the level of the same will cause the problem in the hearing and he was further told that the functions of the device depends on several things like, age, health, life style etc of the person.
Complainant has approached OP for improving his hearing capacity through the hearing aids sold by the OP and the OP has assured about due performance of the product and even has given a warranty of two years. But it is evident from the number of visits made by the complainant to the clinic of OP immediately after purchasing of the product, that the same were defective and the defects were not rectified. Even complainant wrote various letters but of no help and finally he was constrained to file this complaint. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
OP is directed to refund Rs.47,500/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint. OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
