Appellant, who is a practicing Doctor and is running a Clinic “Rajmati Chikitsa Kendra’, purchased an Ultrasound machine for a sum of Rs.19 Lac. Alleging that the machine was defective, complaint was filed. Respondents on being served inter-alia took a preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the appellant was not maintainable as he was not a consumer falling within the definition of ‘Consumer’ given under Section 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that he purchased the machine for commercial purposes. On merits, facts stated by the appellant in the complaint were controverted. -3- State Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute did not fall within the ambit of consumer jurisdiction with the following observations: 11. In such facts and circumstances we find that this case is not of deficiency in providing service but of goods supplied against order dated 4.4.08. Now we have to further consider whether Dr. Satyajit Gupta running “Rajmati Chikitsa Kendra” was a consumer u/s 2(i) (d) of the Act. Dr. Gupta has asserted that he used this Colour Doppler machine for his lively hood but no evidence was adduced except verbal assertion on the contrary Opposite parties have relied upon 2011 (2) c.c.c. 72 (N.S.) Kishen Laser Cosmetics vs. Lumenis Pvt. Ltd. to emphasis that in the decision in Sanjay D. Ghodawat vs. R.R.B. Energy Ltd. larger bench of Hon’ble National Commission has upheld such objection in IV (2010) FPJ 178 (N.C.) following Meera Industries vs. Modern construction. As such the complainant using such colour Doppler machine was not a consumer entitled to relief under C.P. Act. 12. The complainant is admittedly running Rajmati Chikitsha Kendra, at Daltonganj. The colour Doppler machine is used for U.S.G. purpose and the complainant has got it under buy back scheme to improve the efficiency of the clinic. Even in the letter head of the complainant fee is mentioned to be valid only for thirty days. Therefore in absence of any evidence on his part that he clinic was run for lively hood only and not for commercial activity, we uphold the objection of the Opposite parties that Dr. Gupta has acquire Siemens Accuson-X 500 of the colour Doppler machine for enhancing his profit.” We agree with the view taken by the State Commission. The point in issue is squarely concluded against the appellant by four judgments of this Commission, reference of which has been made by the State Commission in its order. The judgments cited by the State Commission are binding on us as well. Supreme Court also has taken a similar view in “Birla Technologies Limited vs. Neutral Glass & Allied Industries Limited, (2011) 1 SCC 525”. Since the complaint is being dismissed on the ground of maintainability, Liberty is reserved with the appellant to seek redressal of his grievance in any other forum along with an application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Indian -5- Limitation Act seeking exclude of the time spent in the consumer fora while calculating the limitation in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs.PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.’ | 
