J.P.SHARMA Vs. FIRST MEDICAL SERVICES REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the order dated 26th Day of June,2007 in C.D.No.135 of 2003 by the District Forum, Nizamabad whereby his complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite party to repair the Colour Doppler system and pay costs to the complainant.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant purchased a Colour Doppler ATL 9 HDI for his scanning centre from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.8,50,000/-. As per the agreement, initial amount of Rs.1lakh was paid on 25th April, 2002 and thereafter an amount Rs.6 lakh was to be paid and balance amount of Rs.1lakh was to be paid at the time of installation of the equipment. The opposite party informed the complainant that model equipment ordered by the complainant was not available. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- through his Bank and ACUSOL 128 HP with similar features that of the equipment as ordered by the complainant was delivered to him in the month of May,2002. The demonstration of the equipment was made on 1o-07-2002.

(3.) The machine with 3 probes was supplied by the opposite party instead of the equipment with 4 probes. Therefore, machine could not function in the absence of the required package. When the complainant demanded for the equipment which was agreed to be supplied, the opposite party demanded extra amount for the cardiac probe. The opposite party demanded Rs.8 lakh against the amount of Rs.7 lakh mentioned in the agreement. The opposite party had furnished warranty for the equipment for a period of one year which included the maintenance also. At the time of agreement, the opposite party assured the complainant that the system runs on stabilizer but the system supplied to the complainant has to be supported by a 3KVA UPS online for which the complainant is said to have incurred expenditure of One lakh. The opposite party had suppressed the basic aspects of the functioning of the system resulting it developed problems on 10th April, 2003. The System remained idle as the opposite party has failed to attend to the repairs. The complainant claims that he had suffered loss by spending huge amount on an unworkable system.