G.PRAVINCHAND Vs. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 Complainant is having type 1 diabetes from July 2006 and also a heart patient and his angioplasty done in 2006 and as per the advise of the doctor on 7.4.2007 and by prescription given on that date by Dr.Raj Bal Abkchand to keep regular check on the blood sugar level and for the said purpose he was advised to purchase the product manufactured by the opposite parties 1 to 3 Accu Check comfort and also strips for testing the sugar levels and on 26.4.07 complainant purchased one pack of Accu Check Sensor Comfort 50 manufactured by the opposite parties with expiry date of March 2008 for a sum of Rs.1,400/- from 4th opposite party. The medicine was opened in the end in the of August 2007 for using and the test results started showing abnormal and suddenly increased sugar level of about 320mg to 370mg and thereby even after taking stringent diet and exercise the readings are constantly showing average 320 to 370mg. Hence when he approached the doctor on 27.9.07 by showing the results of the blood tests the higher dose of insulin injection was prescribed on 27.9.07. The complainant purchased yet another pack of Accu Check Sensor Comfort 50 with expiry date of April 2008 batch No.449577 for Rs.1400/- from 4th opposite party bill dated 27.9.07. On 28.9.07 after taking increased doses of medicine he had certain developments due to low sugar and when he contacted another Dr.Elango who had also advised to increase in take of medicines and advised to take blood test at Sagayamatha Hospital and where the blood test were taken at 11.20.a.m and 1.20 pm with Glucometer of the Hospital which was shown results at 185 mg/ml and 220mg/ml. At the same time blood test also were made using the test trips purchased by the complainant manufactured by the opposite party it showed the results as 384 with the batch No.449492 and 249 with batch No.449577 for the 11.20 a.m and 1.00 p.m test and 375mg and 244mg respectively. Hence the above reading confirm that the products strips manufactured by the 1st opposite party with batch No.449492 was grossly defective and the other page also defective and when the doctor advised to test the blood through Glucometer owned by the Hospital at 1.25 p.m in their strips it showed reading as 224. The complainant purchased the products on the basis of news paper advertisement with the assured quality for accurate readings and due to the defective product the earlier use also the complainant filed C.C.No.111/2007 against the opposite party before the District Forum, Coimbatore pending adjudication, the complainant has faced problems in subsequent batch of stripes used the product become manufacturing defective products detrimental to the health of patients and thereby the complainant has come forward with this complaint claiming damages on account of substandard and defective product manufactured by opposite parties 1 to 3 sold by 4th opposite party claiming Rs.50,00,000/- towards compensation for physically set back and mental agony suffered by the complainant directing the opposite parties to caution the public at large and in particular to advise and educate on the possibility of defective nature of the reading directing to with draw and recalls the defective product to prevent further sale and for costs.

(2.) The opposite parties filed their written version denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant already filed similar complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No.111/2007 which was dismissed as not prosecuted and the complainant for the similar cause of action filed this complaint in order to extract for monetary consideration and the complainant has not proved any of the allegations against the opposite parties and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are the renown manufacturers of Accu Check products and no product is delivered with any defects or symptoms as alleged by the complainant and they are manufactured with all standard process and quality control and thereby there was no deficiency of service on their part. Further it is contended complainant is not the consumer and regarding the use of the test trips purchased by the complainant the test strips are vulnerable to any mishandling, moisture, direct sun light and over exposure to the atmosphere for the long periods of time and the stipulations which are mentioned in the insert contained in the test trips vial are mandatory requirement for obtaining optimum results by using the test trips in possession which are not followed by the complainant. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The complainant and the opposite parties have filed their proof affidavit and the complainant side documents are marked as Exhibit A1 to A11 and the opposite parties documents are marked as Exhibit B1 to B10 and the test results from Analytical Department, Madras Medical College regarding the strips sent for analysis are marked as Exhibit C1 and C2.