IMPORTANT POINT
What is optional can never be an integral part of original machine. Allegation of discrimination cannot be sustained on such ground.

Per S.K. Naik, Member —

Petitioner / complainant/ Dr. P.S. Kalantri in this revision petition is aggrieved that the favourable order he had been able to obtain from the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bilaspur, M.P. (District Forum for short) in his complaint against the respondent/opposite party/Wipro G.E. Medical Systems Ltd., has been set aside by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (State Commission for short) and his complaint has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner - complainant, who is running a diagnostic center at Bilaspur, before the District Forum had alleged that from the respondent/opposite party/Wipro G.E. Medical Systems Ltd. he had purchased RT 3200 Advantage II Ultrasound Medical System during the year 1992. His allegations were that the supplier/opposite party had charged him Rs. 8,25,000 / - whereas a similar system was provided to another Dr. M. Parvez Khan at Rs. 6,65,000/-. It had further been alleged that a locally manufactured camera was supplied to him against the promise of supply of original inbuilt camera. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, a compensation of Rs. 3,16,000/- as amount of difference of cost as well as another sum of Rs. 1 ,00,000/- for mental agony was claimed. The District Forum on perusal of the evidence produced by the parties and on appreciation of the evidence held that the respondent/ opposite party had not supplied the machine as per information given to the petitioner / complainant and as per specification. The camera supplied was other than the camera which should have been supplied. The District Forum, therefore, directed the respondent/opposite party to take back the MF camera and supply a MF camera fitted and integrated with the machine in its place or refund the cost of the camera amounting to Rs.80,000/- and pay interest thereon from 01.08.1992 till the realization of the amount @ 12% per annum. It also awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid within a period of one month, in addition a cost of Rs.1000/-. When the matter was taken up in appeal by the respondent/ opposite party before the State Commission, the complaint came to be dismissed as the State Commission found that the District Forum has committed a mistake in ordering the replacement of the camera or to pay its cost as it did not find any deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant is before us in this revision petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission at length. Referring to the order passed by the State Commission, the learned counsel has submitted that the State Commission has totally gone wrong in holding that the petitioner / complainant was not a consumer as he had purchased the medical equipment system for making profit and, therefore, it was meant for commercial purpose. The State commission has failed to consider that at the time during the year 1992 when the equipment was purchased there was no provision to debar purchase of equipment for commercial purpose from the purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The amendment came into effect only after 1993 and, therefore, this finding that the respondent/ complainant was not a consumer is patently illegal. Without entering into any further discussion, we hold that the petitioner/complainant has been wrongly held to be not a consumer by the State Commission.

4. On the merits of the case, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant referring to the sale invoice submitted that the State Commission has gone wrong in holding that no mention either in quotation form or in the order placed by the petitioner / complainant in respect of manufacturer of MF camera has been made to justify its finding that the MF camera was a separate unit manufactured by some other agency as even with regard to the three other co