SUSHMA VERMA Vs. GAINWELL MEDIMART LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint, under Section 12 read with Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the complainant praying for the award of compensation of Rs. 17,40,000 on account of loss incurred by him, due to purchase of S.L.T. C.L. 60 laser machine (hereinafter called the Laser Machine for short) from the opposite party.

(2.) FACTS not in dispute are that the complainant Smt. Sushma Verma is a doctor by profession and her husband Shri Anil Verma is a surgeon in the field of Urology and Endourology. It is further not in dispute that the opposite party M/s. Gainwell Medimart Limited supplied the S.L.T.C.L. 60 laser machine to the complainant, which is used in carrying out laser surgery.

(3.) AVERMENTS in the complaint stated in brief are that : (i). The representative of the opposite party Vijay Manke approached the complainant for sale of the said machine. It was stated by him that the machine was manufactured by M/s. Surgical Laser Technologies, 147, Keystone Drive, Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania, (U.S.A.) and was being marketed and serviced by opposite party in India. Complainant further averred that it was agreed to between the parties that the said machine shall be installed for demonstration purpose only on receipt of token advance of Rs. 5,40,000 to be paid by the complainant to the opposite party as against Rs. 12,20,000, the market price of the said machine. It was further averred that if the complainant does not feel satisfied with the performance of the machine, the opposite party shall take it back at its own cost and refund the advance paid by the complainant to the opposite party, (ii) The machine was installed in the premises of the complainant in the months of October, 1997 on the above terms by opposite party. Complainant further averred that the machine had several defects and was not functioning properly. The Installation Engineer of the opposite party assured the complainant that preliminary problems as above, would be removed as machine is put under work. It was further averred by the complainant that when the complainant s husband Dr. Anil Verma carried out first surgery from the said machine on 3.10.1997, the machine did not function properly and shut down during the surgical operation. It was further averred that while surgery was being carried out from the said machine on 15.1.1998, the machine again shut down and in spite of all efforts it could not be started, (iii) Shri M. Jayakrishnan, Service Engineer of the opposite party as informed from time -to -time about mal -functioning of the machine and about its stopping work on 15.1.1998. As advised by Shri M. Jayakrishnan, the complainant contacted Shri Joyanto Chakrovorty, Service Engineer of the opposite party at Calcutta, who informed that the machine in question supplied to the complainant was an old model and spares are not readily available in the market. Therefore, in view of non -availability of spare parts, the visit of Shri Joyanto Chakrovorty to the complainant s premises, would be without purpose. The complainant further averred that machine having become totally disfunctional. Complainant s husband Dr. Anil Verma sent a detailed letter to Shri T. Chidambaram, Chairman of the opposite party and demanded that the advance paid by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the said machine be refunded. It was further averred by the complainant that on 8.2.1998, Shri Joyanto Chakrovorty visited the premises of the complainant and replaced major parts of the machine. It was further averred that despite replacement of the major parts of the machine the same did not function satisfactorily about which the complaint was lodged with the opposite party but to no avail. (iv) The complainant averred that the machine used to shut down during every surgery carried out by Dr. Anil Verma, and due to the said problems the surgery got prolonged and it was also hazardous to the patient s life. It was averred that the complainant was supplied a used and old machine on the false pretext that it was a new one. Though the complainant s husband Dr. Anil Verma informed about the problems in the machine to the opposite party and wrote letters to refund the advance price paid by him to the opposite party but the same was not properly responded.