Mr. P.M. Chauhan, President — The complainant, a medical practitioner having medical nursing home and heart hospital had purchased the equipment “D.C. Decibrillator-cum-Monitor Charger with all Access. DMS-630” from the opponent No. 3 who is doing the business of selling medical equipments and having the local office at Ahmedabad and Head Office at Madras for Rs. 46,536.68 for his hospital. The guarantee card was also given by the opponent No. 3 providing the warranty for defective workmanship and material for the period of two months from the date of installation of the instrument or 13 months from the despatch whichever is earlier. According to the complainant, during the warranty period, defects were noticed in the working of the said machine and, therefore, oral complaints were made but nobody attended and, therefore, letter dated 9.1.92 was addressed to the opponent stating that the machine had gone out of order and immediately required to be replaced or serviced and the defects were required to be removed. The letter was responded and the complainant was informed that the machine would, be taken back by the opponent No. 3 for necessary repairs and putting it in order and it was taken away on January 16,1992 and standby unit was supplied till the time the original equipment — DM5 630 was set right. It is contended by the complainant that on enquiry by the complainant with the opponent, he came to know that the equipment was not free from defect or workmanship and/ or material and, there were inherent defects in the same which could not be rectified or repaired. The complainant was informed that the equipment was required to be taken to the workshop/factory of the opponent to be delivered to the complainant when the same was set right and found to be working satisfactorily. The complainant after that sent various reminders but the equipment was not returned and satisfactory reply was also not given. According to the complainant he has suffered great hardship in treating the patients with the standby equipment which was also not satisfactorily working.

According to the complainant, the facilities of the said equipment purchased by the complainant had helped to increase the practice of the complainant as he was the first in Gujarat to purchase the said equipment from the opponent and the complainant acquired the name and fame as heart specialist and patients from throughout Gujarat had started going to the hospital of the complainant for consultation. As the said equipment went out of order subsequently and stopped working somewhere in December 1989 the complainant could not attend his patients with the help of said equipment in the I.C.C.U. and the standby unit DMS 600 supplied in place of DMS 630 is of inferior quality and has no facility of DC shock and Defibillator was not working in the standby unit DMS 600 which is simple monitor. The complainant could not cope up with the work with the said standby unit. The complainant was assured the repairing of DMS-630 within 15 days but it was not repaired till the date of the complaint. The complainant accordingly prayed for the direction to replace the original equipment DMS – 630 by brand new equipment immediately, and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-from December 1991 till the date of the filing of the complaint amounting to Rs.90,000/- with 12% interest and Rs.50,000/- for the loss of prestige and professional reputation.

2. The opponent by reply (Exh.11) denied the allegation about the defect in the equipment and contended that the equipment carried warranty for 13 months from the despatch or 12 months from installation whichever was earlier and the equipment was working without any trouble and the complainant had not made any complaint about the equipment and was using satisfactorily for his hospital purpose without any problem. The warranty of the equipment expired on 29.9.91 and the complainant wrote the letter only on 9.1.91 stating that the machine was out of order f