N.K. SHARMA vs GAINWALL MEDIMART LIMITED

COMPLAINANT-Dr. N.K. Sharma of Faridabad has invoked the original jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint alleging deficiency in service, unfair trade practice in the sale of machinery by the opposite party - M/s. Gainwall Medimart claiming to be agents of M/s. Surgical Laser Technologies INC, U.S.A. The opposite party has been propogating and promoting the sale of surgical instruments popularly known in the market as "surgical contract laser". On the representation made by the opposite party the complainant also placed an order for the installation of the surgical contract laser in his clinic, and paid a sum of Rs. 4 lacs vide cheque No. 370489 dated 20th March, 1995 drawn on UCO Bank, Faridabad by way of an advance for the supply of one surgical contract laser. As agreed to between the parties the opposite party was required to instal the machine at the premises of the clinic of the complainant at Faridabad and was to be made functional after due demonstration of the equipment installed. However after receiving the aforesaid cheque dated 20th March, 1995, the opposite party just showed indifference towards the installation of the machinery and caused undue delay in the same. Not only that, they also got the direct dealing done from M/s. Surgical Laser Technologies to the complainant and also burdened with the sale of camera and monitor of Rs. 6 lacs which was not quoted by the opposite party at the time of placing the order. It was also agreed to that cost of one application for treatment of a patient would be around Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/-, but later on it transpired that the whole fibre costing Rs. 1,000/- once used shall have to be replaced, which was quite an expensive affair and impossible for a patient to offer his undergoing laser surgery.

DESPITE all this, the complainant raised huge financial loan from Haryana Financial Corporation and interest alone whereof became about Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 16,000/- per month. The complainant made yet another grievance, that it was agreed that a duly competent technical Engineer shall be deputed by the opposite party to impart technical knowledge regarding the functioning of the machine to an employee of the complainant, yet this was not done despite repeated requests made by the complainant. Aggrieved by the aforesaid unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the complainant sought redress of his grievance through this complaint claiming refund of the amount paid by him and claiming compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered totalling about Rs. 16 lacs. In reply, the opposite party admitted the factual position regarding the demonstration of the laser machine, its sale and installation in the clinic of the complainant. Regarding the compulsory purchase of the camera and monitor as essential components of the laser surgical machine, it was pleaded that Urologists generally used resectoscopes for performing Urological endoscopic procedures, therefore, it was considered necessary equipment and part and parcel of the machinery sold. Thus allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, have been denied.

In the affidavit filed by way of evidence, the complainant has reiterated the allegations and also substantiated the same to emphasise, that instances of unfair trade practice were writ large on the face of the record. The allegations regarding sale of the camera and monitor alongwith the laser machine alone amounted to Rs. 6 lacs and the functional cost of the treatment of a patient for a single operation amounted to Rs. 7,000/- to Rs. 8,0007-, instead of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- as represented at the time of sale of machinery stand fully established. In fact, from the written statement as well as the counter affidavit filed later on by the opposite party, the facts stand squarely admitted and are not specifically denied.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record we are of the considered view, that the complainant has successfully established by producing overwhelming documentary evidence, that the opposite party have been guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. A bare look at the invoice dated 5th May, 1995 of the machinery sold to the complainant would show, that even by excluding Rs. 59,800/- earlier charged from the complainant but later on refunded to him, the balance comes to Rs. fifteen lacs. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to take back their machine alongwith other equipment like camera and monitor etc. and to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. sixteen lacs by way of compensation, which will include the cost of the machinery and amount of compensation of Rs one lac, by way of monetary loss suffered by the complainant. The claim made for Rs. 5 lacs by way of compensation for loss of reputation is declined, as no evidence whatsoever has been produced by the complainant. The complainant shall also be entitled to the costs of litigation which are quantified at Rs. 2000/-. Complaint disposed of with costs.