B.S.SINGLA OF DISTRICT AMBALA vs CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR INDCHEM ATL LIMITED

FOR the limited purpose of up-holding the preliminary jurisdictional objection that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act, it seems wholly unnecessary to delve deeply into the facts or the merits.

IT suffices to mention that on Dr. B.S. Singla''s own showing, he is a medical professional who is running a prestigious clinic-cum-hospital at Panchkula. For the requirements thereof, he purchased an ultra-sound machine 4500 of the value of Rs. 3,74,800/- from the opposite party M/s. Indchem Atl Limited. This was installed in the clinic of the complainant on the 21st of November, 1991 and it is the case that it started functioning later on the 15th of December, 1991 and thereafter continuously mal-functioned despite the replacement of the transducer and other parts. Aggrieved by the defective goods supplied, the relief sought in the complaint is either the replacement of the said ultra-sound machine or failing that to pay a sum of Rs. 5,49,800/- with interest etc. In the additional written statement filed on behalf of the opposite parties a firm stand has been taken that the complainant does not come within the ambit of the consumer because the goods were purchased patently for a commercial purpose. The averments in the complaint itself have been relied upon to establish that the complainant was running a clinic and designated himself as running a hospital and providing services for which he advertised in the press as well. Mr. K.B.S. Raju, learned Advocate for the opposite party forcefully pressed his stand that it was established on the record that the goods were purchased for patently professional-cum-commercial purposes and consequently the complaint did not fall within the consumer jurisdiction.

There is patent merit in the stand taken on behalf of the opposite party. It bears repetition that from the averments in the complaint itself, it is manifest that the somewhat costly ultra-sound machine was purchased for a commercial purpose. However, what is a clincher i n the matter is the short affidavit of Dr. B.S. Singla, the complainant himself, the relevant part whereof is in the terms following: "That I purchased ultra-sound machine for my clinic which was installed at my clinic on 21st of November, 1991. The same started giving trouble immediately after the purchase. To this effect I gave the advertisement in the Tribune on 8th February, 1992 for business for which. I had to pay Rs. 2,500/- for the said advertisement. That I could earn Rs. 500/- daily minimum from the said machine. Because of the trouble in the machine there is direct loss of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand). After calculation the total loss upto date comes to Rs. more than one lac. The loss will continue multiplying till the realisation."

THE aforesaid averments are conclusive, but we must also notice the very fair stand of Mr. D.C. Dhaula, learned Counsel for the complainant that fees and charges were of course levied from the customers and patients with regard to whom the ultra-sound machine was used. Once that is so, it would be manifest that the opposite party has a cast-iron case in their favour. If the allegedly detective ultra-sound machine has been purchased for the obvious commercial purpose, it is plain that the complainant would not be a consumer for the purposes of the Act. It is unnecessary to advert to a host of the binding precedents of the National Commission beginning with the Oswal Fine Arts Case holding to this effect. However, in fairness, we may also notice Mr. Raju''s reliance on the celebrated case of ''Banglore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa & Others'' AIR 1978 Supreme Court 548, holding authoritatively that a hospital comes well within the ambit of being an industry. Mr. Dhaula had sought time to distinguish the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for opposite parties, but no meaningful distinction could at all be made out.

FOR the foregoing reasons, we up-hold the preliminary jurisdictional objection that the complainant does not come within the definition of a consumer herein. The complaint must, therefore, be dismissed at the very threshold on that score. We would however, leave the parties to bear their own costs. As a matter of abundant caution, we may mention that this would in no way effect whatever legal remedies the complainant may choose to pursue in the regular Civil Courts of law. Complaint dismissed.