Jagvinder Singh vs INSTROMEDIX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

THE complainant is a doctor, practicing at Bathinda having his hospital at 2089, THE Mall, Bathinda under the name and style of Dr. Tirlok Singh Hospital. THE complainant''s case is that he contacted the Instromedix (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and agreed to purchase from them Three Channels Holter Monitoring System'' for Rs. 7,35,000.00 and the latter also agreed to impart the requisite training for operating the equipment. It was further the case of the complainant that he purchased the aforesaid equipment from the opposite party on 20.2.1993 and suddenly in the 3rd week of March, 1993, the equipment became faulty on account of cassette problem and even though the complainant requested the opposite party to rectify the defects, their technicians were unable to remove the defects. THE complainant thereupon preferred this complaint praying that the opposite party be directed to refund the price paid or replace it together with compensation for the loss and injury suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party.

ON notice being issued, the opposite party filed a detailed written statement wherein they have stoutly refuted the contentions of the complainant that the equipment supplied by them was defective. According to the opposite party, the complainant was to blame for the failure to have the desired performance because he failed to handle the equipment properly inspite of the training imparted to him. On a close perusal of the documents (Annexures PI to P13) filed by the complainant and his averments in the complaint, we feel doubtful as to whether the purchase of ''Three Channels Holter Monitoring System'' was not for commercial purpose. The complainant''s Counsel when asked by us, submitted that to get his patients brisk, quick and efficient service, the complainant had purchased the equipment. When pin-pointedly asked, the complainant had stated before us that he was charging Rs. 300.00 to Rs. 400.00 per patient for using the said equipment. From this, it is clear that the complainant had purchased the Holter Monitoring System for making profit. The learned Counsel for the complainant haltingly argued that the equipment was purchased for self employment. The equipment is worth Rs. 7,35,000.00. This is, therefore, a large profit making venture and by no stretch of imagination can it be called to be a self employment purpose. The complainant is not, therefore, a ''consumer'' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the equipment has been purchased for commercial purpose.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant, if so advised wants to pursue his claims against the opposite party, he is at liberty to pursue it in the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. Complaint dismissed.