Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/927/2021

Arjun Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phasorz Technoligies Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

09 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/927/2021
Date of Institution	:	09/12/2021
Date of Decision	:	09/11/2022

 

Arjun Singh s/o Sh. Richpal Singh r/o H.No.2553-A, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Phasorz Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Docs App.) 3^rd Floor Tower D, Diamond District D3, Kodihali, Hal Old Airport, 150 Domlur, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560008

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	OP ex-parte.

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Sh. Arjun Singh, complainant against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the OP has been providing various medical services including online medical consultation and the complainant had purchased Gold Consultation Pack from DOCS App i.e. the OP on 18.5.2021 on payment of ₹1,999/- for medical consultation of his grandmother (nani) who was unable to make visit to any doctor due to COVID-19. The said pack was for a year for unlimited medical consultation and also included three lab tests. The said payment was made by the complainant through online mode i.e. Google Pay. After the said payment, OP started providing online medical consultation to complainant’s grandmother.  The first consultation was provided on 19.5.2021 and thereafter the OP provided second consultation on 22.5.2021. Subsequently, the complainant again approached the OP on 27.5.2021 to get further online medical consultation for his nani, but, the OP denied to provide the same.  As per the Pack, OP was supposed to provide complainant one year free consultation, but, after two consultations, it stopped services and asked the complainant for payment of ₹1,999/- stating that he has yet to purchase the Gold Pack.  The said issue was raised by the complainant with the OP through email stating that the Pack has been inactive to which he received reply from the OP that the Pack had been activated on patient ID : 8964086 and the issue seems to be resolved.  Thereafter, when the complainant again tried booking for consultation, he found that the Gold Package was not active and accordingly he approached the customer centre of the OP several times, but, the problem was not resolved. In the month of August 2021, complainant sent a legal notice to the OP informing it that the service was inactive and only then the online service was activated by the OP and in this manner, there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  The complainant has been searching the address of the OP through internet and after finding the same, he sent a legal notice to it and later on the complainant came to know that even the addresses are either fake or the OP rejected to receive the legal notice.  Alleged the online services were inactivated by the OP during the COVID time and due to aforesaid act of the OP, the health of complainant’s nani deteriorated.  In this manner, OP has rendered insufficient services to the complainant’s nani despite charging an amount of ₹1,999/- which amounts to unfair trade practice on its part.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP was properly served and when the OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 7.9.2022.

2. In order to prove his case, complainant has tendered/proved his evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for?
3. Relief

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that he had purchased the Gold Consultation Pack for his nani on 18.5.2021, by paying an amount of ₹1,999/- to the OP, who had been providing online medical services including medical consultation, and the same was yearly package for unlimited medical consultation and included three lab tests, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if there is unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, as is the case of the complainant.
6. In order to prove his case, complainant has relied on Annexure C-1 showing that an amount of ₹1,999/- was transferred in the account of OP.  Annexure C-2 to C-9 are copies of detailed correspondence by the complainant with the OP which clearly indicates that the OP had earlier denied the receipt of aforesaid payment from the complainant, but, later on vide Annexure C-7, it had admitted the inactivation of the Gold Pack given by it to the complainant and had activated the Gold Pack and had also tendered apology due to inactivation of the services as well as inconvenience caused to the complainant. Thus, from the aforesaid correspondence with the complainant and OP, one thing stands proved on record that the OP, despite of receipt of an amount of ₹1,999/- from the complainant, had inactivated the said service which was agreed to be provided through Gold Consultation Pack and also stopped providing online medical consultation to the nani of the complainant without reasonable cause and the said act of the OP proves deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP.

Relief

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is accordingly partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8. This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it 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.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 09/11/2022 hg			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member