DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 1415

 Instituted on:   22.11.2021 

                                                                         Decided on:     23.11.2023

Nirmala Devi aged 59 years wife of Shri Madan Lal resident of Gende Wala Bagh, Ward No.3, Lehra Gagga, District Sangrur.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Nuga Best Therapy Centre ( Nuga Medical Company Limited) SCO 2475-76, Basement, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

2.     Nuga Best ( Nuga Medical Co. Limited) Company Limited, Head Office 1114-1115, World Trade Tower, Noida Sector 16, Noida 201301, through its Managing Director. 

….Opposite parties. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

KANWALJEET SINGH             : MEMBER

For the complainant  : Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate              

For the Ops             : Exparte

ORDER

KANWALJEET SINGH, MEMBER

1.             The complainant has alleged  in this complaint that  the complainant  is a consumer qua the Ops. The complainant purchased in installments one physiotherapy machine namely NUGA N4 from Ops vide booking slip dated 05.09.2016 for Rs.1,69000/-. The above mentioned machine was delivered at the house of complainant on 15.09.2016 by the Ops.  The complainant was suffering from a slight pain in  her knees as well as  in  her shoulders  for the last 5-6 months but there was no major problem. The Ops told the complainant that they are providing demo of the machine to such like patients free of cost for two-three days and assured the complainant that if she will purchase the machine and use it  regularly for  3-4 months then  she will get rid of all her problems relating to  knees  and shoulders. The Ops assured that the technician of the Ops will regularly visit the house of the complainant every month for a continuous period of two years and also gave assurance that they will  refund the cost  of the machine,  if the complainant  did not get any relief.  The complainant  instead of getting relief from the use of above said machine started feeling excessive  pain in  the knees and shoulders alongwith severe pain in the spine region. The condition of the complainant  deteriorated severally and  she was rendered confined to bed and she did not able to stand on her  legs and move her arms. The husband of the complainant took her  to a number of hospitals at Hissar, Ludhiana, Mohali.  It was told  by the consulting doctors that due to effect of use of the above said machine,  the complainant  had suffered  a very severe effect on her spine  and vertebral  region due to which  she is experiencing acute  pain in her legs  and shoulders.  For the last three four years  the complainant  had been suffering a lot of mental pain, loss of health and financial loss  due to use of the defective and useless machine supplied by the Ops. The complainant personally visited the centre of OP no.1  number of times  and requested them  to take  back the machine and refund  the cost of the machine. The OP no.1 flatly refused to take back the machine and refund its cost. In  the meantime, Ops closed their outlet at Sangrur permanently.  The machine  supplied by the Ops  is defective and useless. The Ops committed  unfair trade practice on their part.  The machine was having warranty till 12.09.2018 and same became defective  well within warranty  period. The complainant lastly prayed that the Ops  may kindly be directed to refund the cost of the machine  of Rs,.1,69,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum  from the date of purchase till realization  and to pay Rs.500000/- on account of expenditure incurred by the complainant on her treatment due to adverse effect of the machine on her body and permanently loss of health and to pay Rs.2,00000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notices to the Ops, despite that OPs neither appear nor contest the complaint as such Ops were proceeded against exparte vide separate order.

3.             To prove  her complaint,  the complainant  tendered into evidence  her self-attested  affidavit Ex.C-1 and  some documentsEx.C-2 to Ex.C-7 and  closed evidence. 

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for  complainant and gone through the record file carefully  with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant. During exparte arguments the contentions of the counsel for complainant  are similar to the respective pleadings, so  there is no need to reiterate the same to avoid repetition.

5.             Now, come to major controversy,  whether the complainant is liable for relief  as claimed by her in her prayer or  not?

6.             It is not disputed that the complainant  had purchased one physiotherapy machine from OPs on 05.09.2016 for Rs.1,69,000/-. The product in question is under the warranty  for one year from the date of purchase and one year company warranty provided by Ops to the complainant. Ex.C-4 is a Healing Reaction Pamphlet  and mentioned the effects on body after use the machine in question.  Further, Ex.C-5 is a chart provided by technician of Ops how to use the product in question. The complainant pleaded in her complaint para number 3 (b)  that complainant   was suffering from a slight pain in her knees and shoulders for the last 5-6   months. Further,  the complainant pleaded   in para no.3 ( e) that complainant instead of getting the relief from the use of above said machine, started feeling excessive pain in her knees and shoulders alongwith severe pain in the spine region . Ex.C-6  Fortis Hospital, Mohali discharge summary at  page no.18 mentioned as  in “ nothing significant” the past history of the complainant. 

7.             From  the perusal  of Ex.C-6, we feel that the complainant knows herself  very well, she why not described  knees and shoulders problem in the past history as pleaded as para no.3 (b) of complaint.  Furthermore, complainant mentioned in her pleadings in para no.3 (f)  of the complaint, “it was told  by the consulting doctors that due to effect of  use of abovesaid machine,  the complainant had suffered a very severe effect on her spine and  vertebral region  due to which she was experiencing   acute pain in her legs and shoulders”. This Commission has the considered view that the oral evidence is a weak evidence. The complainant neither  produced on record any expert opinion nor any cogent, reliable  and trustworthy evidence to prove her case that  due to use of machine in question  the complainant had suffered   acute pain  in her legs  and shoulders. The onus of proof is on  the complainant  to prove her case on her own legs. The complainant further pleaded in para no.3 (f) and (h) of the complaint that the machine in question is defective one provided by the Ops. It is writ large on the file that  the complainant miserably failed to produce on record a single  piece of evidence that the product in question is having  any specific manufacturing defect. From  this angle, the complainant failed to prove her case.   The complainant has produced in her evidence a lengthy evidence which is Ex.C-6 ( 36 pages) regarding her medical treatment.  This Commission  has no hesitation to hold that  the medical treatment of the complainant had not occurred due to the use of the product  in question. We feel that the complainant has started her treatment of ortho after one year and five months  from  the date of purchase of the product in question i.e 05.09.2016.  This Commission  has the opinion that since 05.09.2016 from the date of purchase of the product in question to 05.02.2018  the complainant neither pleaded in her pleadings nor produced any material evidence on record that the complainant having  health problem regarding use of the product in question. From the perusal of Ex.C-2  terms and conditions of the product  clauses 4 and 5 are reproduced as under:-

Clause 4:  All sales are final no return or no refunds.

Clause 5:  After demo I purchase this product, after that  I cannot any claim of Nuga Best regarding this product.

8.             The complainant further  stated that I have read through and understood each and of above terms and conditions. I have voluntarily purchased the product  and  have signed this agreement.  We feel that on the terms and conditions of the product in question complainant put her signature on 05.09.2016 in Punjabi Language. Moreover, the complainant failed to produce any expert opinion from a technician with regard to any manufacturing  defect in the product in question. We feel  that the terms and conditions are binding upon  the parties of the contract. No party can violate the terms and conditions.     

9.             Resultantly, keeping  in view of the  facts and  circumstances  of the  complaint  in hand  and with  careful  analysis  of the evidence available on record, we dismiss the present complaint of the complainant.  

10.           The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

11.           Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance

                Announced

                November 23, 2023

( Kanwaljeet Singh)                             (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

    Member                                              President

BBS/-