D. SRIHARI RAO Vs. WIPRO G.E. MEDICAL SYSTEMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint is filed against M/s Wipro G.E. Medical Systems seeking direction for refund of Rs.37 lakhs with interest @ 24% per annum in the alternative for replacement of equipment i.e., Voluson 730 Pro and an amount of Rs.25 lakhs towards damages in addition to the sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs.

(2.) The averments of the complaint are that the complainant, a doctor by profession has been running a diagnostic centre in M/s S.V. Diagnostic Center at Tirupathi. The complainant purchased Voluson 730 Pro from the opposite parties in exchange with the old equipment which was valued at Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and agreed to pay an amount of RS.11 lakhs in 60 monthly installments. Some time after the machine was installed, it posed various problems which were brought to the notice of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 by a letter dated 5.7.2005. The complainant requested the opposite parties either to replace the machine with a new one or extend the warranty period of the equipment in question. The opposite parties by letter dated 8.9.2005 extended the warranty period of the machine for a period of six months from 30.5.2005 to 29.11.2005. On 22.3.2001 the complainant purchased a 4D Colour Doppler Ultra Sound Scanner System i.e., V730 Pro Machine from the first opposite party for a consideration of Rs.37 lakhs.

(3.) The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.7,16,253/- and the balance amount of Rs.30 lakhs was financed by GE Capital Services, New Delhi to be paid over a period of six years. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the first year EMI and he has been paying an amount of Rs.61,531/- towards the EMI for the rest of the loan period. Since the date of installation of the 4D Colour Doppler Ultra Sound Scanner System (V730 Pro machine) out of five probes, 3 probes had not been working properly. The matter was reported to the opposite parties. The service team could not repair the problem. The complainant had suffered heavy financial loss due to the improper performance of the machine. The complainant has been paying the loan even though the machine was not functioning properly. The service team of the first opposite party had not solved the problem. On 8.4.2006 the complainant demanded the opposite party no.1 for replacement of the machine. On 4.7.2006 the complainant requested the second opposite party for exchange of the machine. The complainant is compelled to send the patients to the nearest cities such as, Madras and Bangalore.