Complainant/petitioner is a doctor by profession.  Respondent is doing business in medical equipments.  Petitioner, intending to buy one Laproscopic set, sought Proforma Invoice from the respondent.  Respondent gave proforma invoice on 27.8.2003 quoting the price of the Laproscopic set at Rs.7 lakh.  Petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- as an advance on 1.9.2003.  Respondent acknowledged the same by issuing a certificate.  Petitioner secured a loan from the bank by producing the original certificate issued by the respondent.  Further, as per the demand made by the respondent, petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- on 20.9.2003 by way of pay order in favour of Endo Medical Systems.  Respondent enchased the same.  Respondent did not supply the Laproscopic set.  Being aggrieved, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the dispute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Petitioner, being aggrieved, preferred appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and remitted the case back to the District Forum for a fresh decision on merits.

        District Forum, after remand, vide its order dated 19.05.2007, allowed the complaint partly and directed the respondent to deliver the equipment to the petitioner along with Rs.5,000/- as costs.

        Respondent accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file any appeal.  Petitioner preferred the appeal before the State Commission on the ground that he had closed his business at Bangalore and shifted to U.K. and sought refund of the amount instead of the equipment.  State Commission dismissed the appeal.

        Petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition.

        Counsel for the respondent made a statement on 17.9.2008 before a Bench of this Commission that the respondent is not willing to refund the price of the equipment but is prepared to deliver the equipment which the petitioner had ordered.  Petitioner had filed the complaint seeking direction to the respondent to supply the equipment as per the agreement entered into between the parties.  Fora below have allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to supply the equipment for which the order had been placed on the respondent.  Relief prayed for by the petitioner has been granted by the fora below.  Since the main relief has been granted, alternate relief now sought by the petitioner to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner cannot be accepted.  Dismissed.