Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 01-04-2019 in case of petitioner name Dr. D.J. De Souza vs Managing Director CPC Diagnost
| |

Consumer Rights in Medical Equipment Purchase: Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Decision

Updated on

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated April 1, 2019, ruled in favor of CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. in a consumer dispute concerning the sale of medical equipment. The case involved a complaint by Dr. D.J. De Souza, who alleged that the company engaged in unfair trade practices and provided defective equipment. The Court upheld the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and lower consumer forums, stating that the purchase conditions were clear, and the seller had no obligation beyond the agreed terms.

Background of the Case

Dr. D.J. De Souza placed an order for a TurboChem 100 Unit, a fully automated random-access biochemistry analyzer, in response to a quotation provided by CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. in August 2015. He paid Rs. 3,50,000, covering 50% of the cost of the instrument. The pre-installation requisites provided by the seller included:

  • An efficiently air-conditioned room.
  • A 1 KVA Online UPS for running the equipment.
  • A broadband connection for “i-track” (Remote Diagnostics Tool).

The equipment was delivered on September 30, 2015. However, during installation, the service engineer pointed out that the UPS used by Dr. De Souza was unsuitable. He was advised to install a 1 KVA Online UPS. Additionally, the complainant raised concerns that the machine lacked an onboard laundry facility, making it unusable for his requirements.

Complaint and Proceedings Before Consumer Forums

Dr. De Souza filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa, seeking:

  • A refund of Rs. 3,50,000 with 9% interest.
  • Damages of Rs. 50,000.
  • Action against the company for restrictive trade practices.

The District Forum dismissed the complaint, stating:

  • The complainant failed to provide evidence that onboard laundry was a part of the equipment specifications.
  • The equipment brochure provided before purchase did not include onboard laundry as a feature.
  • The requirement of a 1 KVA Online UPS was explicitly mentioned in the pre-installation conditions.

Dr. De Souza appealed before the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, arguing that the requirement for an Online UPS was arbitrary and that his existing UPS was suitable. He also alleged that the company engaged in unfair trade practices. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on July 8, 2016, stating:

  • The seller clearly communicated the specifications before the purchase.
  • The complainant had accepted the pre-installation conditions.
  • The onboard laundry facility was not promised as part of the equipment.

Dr. De Souza filed a revision petition before the NCDRC, which was also dismissed on December 14, 2017. The Commission found no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the seller.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Dr. De Souza challenged the NCDRC ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing:

  • The manufacturer in the USA confirmed via email that the complainant’s existing UPS was compatible with the TurboChem 100.
  • The seller’s insistence on installing a 1 KVA Online UPS was arbitrary and amounted to restrictive trade practices.
  • The lack of an onboard laundry facility made the equipment unusable, constituting a deficiency in service.

Respondent’s (CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.) Arguments

  • The pre-installation conditions clearly mentioned the requirement for a 1 KVA Online UPS.
  • The complainant accepted these conditions before purchase.
  • The product brochure did not include onboard laundry as a feature.
  • The insistence on a 1 KVA Online UPS was based on the electricity supply conditions in India, and not an arbitrary decision.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the consumer forums, making the following key observations:

  • The pre-installation requirements were explicitly communicated before purchase.
  • The complainant did not provide evidence that the equipment was supposed to include an onboard laundry facility.
  • The seller had the right to specify installation conditions to ensure proper functioning of the equipment.
  • The email from the manufacturer in the USA could not override the installation requirements set by the seller based on local conditions.
  • All lower forums had found no deficiency in service or restrictive trade practice.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The pre-installation requisite as reproduced above clearly stipulates that the appellant has to provide an efficiently air-conditioned room, a 1 KVA Online UPS, and a broadband connection for remote diagnostics. The email from the manufacturer will not override the pre-conditions of installation, which are in view of electricity supply conditions in the country. Accordingly, we find no error in the orders passed by the consumer forums.”

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the NCDRC ruling.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for consumer disputes involving technical product specifications:

  • Clarifies Consumer Responsibilities: Consumers must comply with pre-installation conditions and cannot claim deficiency in service for failing to do so.
  • Limits Scope of Restrictive Trade Practice Claims: Sellers can specify installation requirements based on technical needs without it being deemed unfair trade practice.
  • Strengthens Contractual Clarity: Courts will enforce terms explicitly stated in product agreements.
  • Supports Manufacturer-Seller Autonomy: Sellers can set additional conditions based on local conditions, even if international manufacturers provide different guidance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. D.J. De Souza vs. CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. reinforces the principle that consumer disputes must be evaluated based on contractual commitments. By upholding the NCDRC’s decision, the Court emphasized the importance of pre-installation requirements and limited the scope of arbitrary claims of unfair trade practices.


Petitioner Name: Dr. D.J. De Souza.
Respondent Name: Managing Director CPC Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Hemant Gupta.
Place Of Incident: Goa.
Judgment Date: 01-04-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Dr. D.J. De Souza vs Managing Director CP Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 01-04-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Hemant Gupta
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts