Dr. Umme Salma naila Urooj v. M/s. Clinix Intelligent Medical Systems Pvt Ltd.,

the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite parties S shall pay penal interest @ 12% P.A., under item No.1 W.e.f. 07.09.2018 i.e., from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 4). Rest of the complaints claim is dismissed.

2. For the sake of the convenience the parties are arrayed as in the original complaint i.e., as complainant and the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that she being a Dentist

3.

had purchased a Dental chair/Equipment from the opposite party vide Invoice No.124 dt.,29.06.2017 by paying a sum s of Rs.1,80,000/ and the opposite party had assured about the quality of the product and timely service to be provided. The said equipment was installed at the clinic of the complainant on 11.09.2017, within a few days of installation the equipment stopped functioning and the following complainants in the equipment where aroused. Intraoral camera and TV turner was not working and when a complainant was made the opposite party had collide the same after a lapse of 4 months.

The motorized section was not working and the complainant had to inform several times to the opposite party but the opposite party failed to attendedit at an urgent cases.

Air prophy unit was not working and when informed,the opposite party promised to replace it but replacedthe same after a lapse of 11 months.

The Exide head connections were broken.

The light sensor was not working.

Due to all these functioning problems the complainant had to

4.

time and again make phone calls to the opposite party and who would mostly avoid the calls and though attended the repairs that the same were done after a lapse of 2 to 3 months. This attitude of opposite party had not only caused inconvenience to the complainant

but also had caused loss of earnings as the complainant

was eeking out her livelihood by doing the dental procedures. Apart from the financial loss and inconvenience the

2

complainant being a dentist had also lost her reputation before the patients and embarrassed before the patients when the equipment failed to function properly. Due to all such deficiency of services the complainant is before this commission seeking compensatuon 1or financial loss and also compensation for loss of reputatiorn, inconvenience, mental agony and also losses.

The opposite party while adrnitting the purchase of the denta equipment had pleaded that though the opposite party had delivered the equipment on 29.06.2017. The complainant had sought time to get it installed on the pretext of saying that her

5.

clinic is not yet ready and finally on 11.09.2017 the equipment was installed at the complainant's clinic.

And that, this opposite party had promptly attended to all the complaints that were raised by the complainant in time as such the question of avoiding phone calls does not arise. The opposite party further pleads that the camera and monitor 6. circuits were burnt due to the voltage fluctuations at the complainant's clinic and the opposite party had advised the complainant to use a "Servo Stabilizer" to protect the equipment but the complainant failed to follow the said instructions which had resulted in the damage to the equipment. However, this opposite party had replaced the camera and monitor circuit free of cost which costs Rs.20,000/-.

7. The opposite party further pleads that motorized section box is to be cleaned regularly with hot water, so that the sucked blood and saliva will be cleaned thoroughly. And the complainant was also advised to add a hazardous waste separator but the complainant failed to follow the said instructions which has resulted in the chocking of the section box and the technician of the opposite party had to clean the same.

8. The opposite party had provided air prophy unit worth Rs. 2,500/- as a compliment to the complainant, and the light sensor is also not the part of the standard equipment, but the opposite party^had supplied the same free of cost which costs Rs.2000/- and the said units were burnt due to the carelessness of the

3

complainant^but however this oppositc party^has replaced it with a

new censor PCB on 01. 10.2018. Thc warranty pcriod for the cquipment expired on 29.06.2018. Despite the same the opposite party had provided this scrvices to the complainant on 01.10.2018. The oppositc party had provided 7 scrvicc visits and also replaced the following items during the warranty pcriod.

9

Onc Camera with cord along with adapter on 06. 10.2017. One Basin Box on 05. 12.2017.

One Micromotor and one Camera with cord along with memory on 06.02.2018.

One new, Camera, one Micromotor, onc Suction Bottle Sensor, one Suction holder and Tips and one single way Volve on 23.03.2018.

One X-ray end joint on 17.05.2018, one Camera memory eye repaired.

One Air Polisher and one Tuner cord on 23.07.2018. One Light Sensor on 28.09.2018 and as a result, the Opposite party has incurred heavy loss. The opposite party further pleaded that the complainant without maintaining the equipment as advised and not using the stabilizer misused the equipment due to her carelessness and is now seeking compensation based on false and frivolous allegations. The complainant and opposite party have filed their evidence affidavits before the District Forum and got marked Ex.Al to A13 and MO 1, and Ex.B1 to B15 on their behalf respectively. The District Forum having perused the material available on record, passed the orders as stated in paragraph no.l being not satisfied by the said order the complainant is before this commission for enhancement of the compensation by way of this appeal on the following grounds.

The complainant

has filed this appeal stating that District Forum has failed to look into the evidences and evaluate the compensation properly.

4

The District Forum though accepted the deficiencies of the opposite party, had awarded a meager compensation ignoring the actual loss of earnings and mental sufferings of the appellant.

The District Forum had failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant has incurred monthly expenses by way of rent, payment to her assistant, electricity charges, maintenance etc., The District Forum also failed to grant any compensation for loss of reputation which has affected very badly.

10. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Consumer Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?

2. To what relief ?

11. Point No.1:

The Grievance of the Complainant /Appellant is that, she being a dentist had purchased a dental chair from the opposite party and within few days of purchase the equipment had some or the other problem due to which she could not do the dental procedures, which has resulted in loss of earnings, though the opposite party rectified several times but had done with a gap of 2 to 3 months as such during such period she could not use the product as such claiming compensation for the financial loss and inconvenience and loss of reputation and costs of litigation. On the other hand the opposite party had opposed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had not used the

"Servo Stabilizer"

as advised by them as such due to the voltage fluctuations the equipment had been getting some or the other problems.

What is manifest from the documents filed by both sides is that the dental chair/equipment was installed on 11.09.2017 and on 30.10.2017 the first complaint

was raised by the complainant

5

and Exs.A3 to Exs.A8 and A12 and the documents Exs.B3 to B9 are the same documents i.e., the service notes. It is pertinent to mention here that the equipment was installed on 11.09.2017 and first complaint arose on 30.10.2017 and till 01.10.2018 i.e., in a span of one year the equipment had to be repaired for six times with certain replacement of parts. A brand new purchased product requiring repair and replacement of parts for six times within a span of one year is itself sufficient to conclude that the product was defective and the conversation under M.O. 1 (C.D) in between the complainant and the technician of opposite party is evident with regard to the inconvenience and hardship faced by the complainant in doing the dental procedures.

The complainant who is a dentist and eeking out her livelihood by doing the practice of dentistry might have certainly suffered loss of business due to the non-functioning of the equipment.^The reoccurring problems and replacement of parts itself demonstrates that the same had disrupted the work of the complainant and the same might have certainly caused severe inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant and also most of her patient might have been dis-satisfied with her services.

Coming^{to the} Quantum of compensation awarded, the complainant did not file any proof of her monthly income nor filed any proof^of rental and maintenance charges, nor filed any proof that she pays a 'salary of Rs.2000/-

to the assistant in the absence of any such proof the total loss of earning cannot be assessed. Apart from that the fact that the opposite party had repaired and replaced the parts on several occasions free of cost and had also deposited the awarded amount in the District Forum with in time needs to be appreciated and cannot be over looked. But however admittedly the complainant had faced inconvenience and hardship and also loss of earnings due to non- functioning of the dental equipment, as such we are of the view

6

hat the conmplainant be suitably compensuted as such we leel that the ordr of the District Forum necds to be modilicd s under.

12 Point No.3; ln the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by modilying the ordler of the District liorum as under.

1. The Opp0site party/Respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the inconvenicnce, hardship and mental ngony caused to thhe compluinant.

2. To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards costs of litigation. The Respondent / Oppositc party had deposited an amount of Rs.40,000/- before the District Commission -II, Hyderabadⁱⁿ compliance of^the orders of the District Commission.^The Appellant/Complainant^is cntitled^to withdraw^the same from the Distriet Commission, after the expiry of the Appcal time.

7