Date of filing  :  25-03-2010

                                                                                        Date of order  :  31-07-2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C. 76/10

                         Dated this, the 31^st    day of July 2010

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                       : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                             : MEMBER

Satchidananda Institute of Medical Science,

Anandashram.Po, Kanhangad, Kasaragod.Dt                       } Complainant

Represented by its Chairman

Dr.M.R.Nambiar.

(Adv. A.Radhakrishnan, Kanhangad)

P.K. Sinha,

Chairman & Managing Director,                                             } Opposite party

Picks Medical System Limited,

Corporate office, R/264,

TTC MIDC RABALE,

Navi Mumbai- 400701

(Ex-parte)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            Bereft of unnecessaries the case of complainant is that the High Frequency Intensifer C-Arm supplied by opposite party was subjected to frequent defects from the beginning of its purchase and it was repaired by the service personnels of opposite party  only on repeated requests.  The  lethargic attitude of opposite party and repeated repairs caused inconvenience to doctors and bad reputation to the institution. Recently complainant came to know that the C Arm Image Intensifier supplied by opposite party is not a new but a refurbished one containing obsolete parts and that caused the frequent failure of C-Arm.  Further the body parts of the machine are already rusted in many  places which is dangerous to use in a surgical operation theatre.  The complainant had already paid 1,50,000/- rupees towards the service charges that is against the normal practice prevailing in the industry.  Therefore the complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service and restrictive trade practice on the part of opposite party  and claiming refund of 1,50,000/-rupees that is paid to opposite party towards service charges, with  compensation 3,00,000/- as damages and  cost of 50,000/- rupees and also a direction to opposite  party to replace the Picks High Frequency Image Intensifier C-Arm.

2.         Notice is issued to opposite party by registered post.   Opposite party received notice and their Authorised Signatory sent  a letter dated 29-05-10 seeking 90 days further time for the appearance of opposite party to complete all the legal formalities related to the notice on priority basis.    Since the time sought by opposite party was beyond the limits as envisaged under the CP Act, a further time of 30 days is granted for filing version and case posted to 2-7-10. But on that day also opposite party remained absent.  Hence opposite party is set ex-parte and the case posted for the evidence of complainant.

3.         For complainant Dr.M.R.Nambiar filed proof affidavit.  Exts A1 & A2 marked.  Counsel for the complainant heard.  Documents perused.

4.         It is the case of complainant that opposite party supplied an old refurbished high frequency image intensifier C-Arm representing it as new.  As a result it is subjected to recurring defects causing inconvenience to doctors and bad reputation to the complainant’s institution. Apart from that opposite party also collected 1,50,000/- rupees towards the repair charges against the prevailing practice in the industry.  Therefore his complaint seeking an order to replace High Frequency Image Intensifier C-Arm with the refund of 1,50,000/- which opposite party collected towards repair charges, compensation of 3,00,000/- rupees towards damages and cost of 50,000/- rupees.

6.         The act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice as envisaged U/s 2(1)  {r}1(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act.   It says that  Unfair  Trade Practice means a trade practice which for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including  the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which falsely represents any re-built second-hand, renovated reconditioned or old goods or new goods.

            Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed  to replace the High Image Intensifier C-Arm with a defect free one with a compensation of 2,00,000/- rupees ( Rupees two  lakhs only) and cost of 5,000/-rupees.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  Failing which the compensation  2,00,000/- rupees  will carry interest @ 9% from the date of complaint till payment.

     Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1. 11-11-2009 Copy of lawyer notice.

A2. Postal acknowledgement card.

     Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/                                                                                Forwarded by Order

                                                                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT