CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 19th day of August 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 17/02/2014
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC.NO.24/2014
Kabeer.V.S,
S/o. Sulaiman,
Vattapparekkal House,
Kottassery, Cheraya P.O,
Kongad, Palakkad – 678 631 : Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
1. Suhail,
Bawa Medicals,
1/33 G.B.Road, Palakkad.
(By Adv. Akbar Ali)
2. Life Scan,
Johnson and Johnson Medical Division, : Opposite Parties
Johnson and Johnson Ltd,
64/66 Senapati, Bapat Marg,
Mahim Mumbai- 400016
(By Adv. P.Sreeprakash)
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny . P. R. Member.
Brief facts of the case:- The Complainant had purchased Glucometer from 1st Opposite party on 2-2-2014 for Rs 999/- monitoring the blood sugar level. 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the gulcometer. On 3-2-2014 complainant cross checked the product with lab test of Daya hospital Lab Kongad. The results showed a Random Blood sugar level of 102mg as against an actual of 182mg. Then the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for the replacement of the glucometer or refund of the cost. But they did not replace it or refund the cost of the product. Hence the complaint.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties and they entered appearance and filed their version.
1st opposite party admitted the sale of the glucometer. They are not competent to determine whether the product sold is good or not. They purchase the Glucometer from the wholesaler Money pharma. They have no responsibility to replace the product or refund the cost. Thus there is no deficiency from their part. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
2nd opposite party submitted that difference in the results shown on the meter and lab report are due to the incorrect procedure followed for comparing the results. The procedure to be followed is explained in the owner’s booklet/manual provided to the complainant along with the Glucometer. The complainant did not sent back glucometer to the customer care department of 2nd opposite party to enable to verify the performance of the Glucometer as per the request of 2nd opposite party. Moreover customer care department offered to have the Blood Glucose Monitor replaced directly by sending one of its representative personally. But the complainant insisted on the refund only from opposite party. 2nd opposite party further submitted that the quality of glucometer is good and all the blood glucose monitors sold by the 2nd opposite party meet the ISO standards. Glucometer is not a defective product. Thus there is no deficiency from the part of the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Ext. A1 to A3 marked from the side of complainant. Ext. B1 marked on the side of opposite parties. MO1 also marked.
The following issues are considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
Both parties heard: - We have perused the documents on record. As per Ext.A1 the complainant purchased the glucometer from the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party submitted that 1st opposite is only a dealer. Dealer could not verify every machine is correct or not. Hence we cannot attribute deficiency in service on 1st opposite party. Conditions specified In Ext.A2 shows that if the meter is defective it should be returned to 2nd opposite party to avail replacement. But the complainant did not sent it back to the 2nd opposite party. The customer care department offered to send the meter to the control solution test to check whether the meter was showing correct result or not. But the complainant refused to carry out solution test. The complainant did not co-operate with the 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that if there is any defects in the glucometer they are ready to replace the same. More over complainant did not take any steps to get expert opinion to show that glucometer is defective. Hence we cannot rely upon Ext A3. Hence there is no deficiency from the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.
In the view of above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. Hence complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of August 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Suma K.P Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Photocopy of purchase bill issued by 1st opposite party
Ext.A2 - Photocopy of warranty card issued by opposite party
Ext.A3 - Photocopy of Lab report issued by Daya Hospital
MO1 - Glucometer
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1- Warranty Card.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
No cost allowed
Forwarded by/By order
Senior Superintendent(I/C)
