STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 180 of 2025 Date of Institution : 22.03.2025 Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 Sh. Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Shiv Charan, aged 35 years, R/o H.No.2309, Sector 27-C, Chandigarh.

Appellant/Complainant Versus

1. M/s Sony Medical Store, Booth No.114-115, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through its Partner/Proprietor.

2. M/s Microgene Diagnostic Systems Private Limited, 806, Vikram Towers, Rajendra Place, New Delhi, Delhi – 110008 through its Managing Director (Manufacturer).

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the appellant – on VC Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1 – on VC Sh. Tausif Alam, Advocate for respondent No.2 – on VC Sh. Vivek Chawla, Zonal Manager (Sales) of respondent No.2 PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by the complainant – Sh.

Sandeep Kumar (appellant herein), seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission') vide order dated 01.04.2025 in consumer complaint No.593 of 2023 filed by the complainant, besides claiming litigation expenses, on the ground that a defective glucometer purchased by the complainant from opposite party No.1 showed/recorded inconsistent blood sugar readings with fasting levels reported as 128 and 71 and post-breakfast levels as 120 and 83; despite notifying respondent No.2 and contacting customer care on 10.08.2023, no corrective action was taken; that the appellant’s wife, a non-diabetic, fainted due to low sugar, requiring emergency hospitalization and a two-week stay costing ₹50,000/-, along with a diabetic diet; that newborn also received injections for sugar level monitoring and these critical facts were overlooked by the District Commission, which warrants modification of the impugned order. It has been stated that despite the District Commission holding deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents, the District Commission has ordered refund of ₹1,200/- alongwith interest @9% per annum (simple) from the date of payment till onwards and awarded lumpsum compensation of ₹3,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment, which is on the lower side and needs to be suitably enhanced to ₹1 Lakh. It has further been stated that since due to unlawful acts of the respondents, the appellant had to engage an advocate, to whom he paid ₹33,000/- as professional fee, the appellant is entitled to same litigation cost of ₹33,000/- but the District Commission has not awarded any litigation costs. In support of contentions raised, the appellant has cited ‘Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others’, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3138 = III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC); ‘Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj’, (2010) 8 SCC 1 and Surendra Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (NC).

2] On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.1, it has been argued that respondent No.1 was only the retailer and not manufacturer and it could not be made liable for any defect in the glucometer as there was no deficiency on its part.

3] However, on behalf of respondent No.2 – manufacturer, it was argued that there was no conclusive or cogent evidence led by the appellant/complainant before the District Commission to prove that the glucometer was inherently defective and the same was not working properly. It has further been stated that the District Commission only held that the glucometer was collected by respondent No.2 from the appellant/complainant but did nothing to redress the grievance of the complainant which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2. It has further been stated that though the District Commission held that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that due to higher sugar level, his wife was admitted to the hospital and