THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: An 86-year-old woman who was duped into purchasing a defective hearing aid was awarded a refund and compensation by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). The order came on an appeal petition filed by her 76-year-old brother against the Kottayam district commission’s adverse order.
According to the complainant, he purchased the hearing aid from the Kottayam-based speech and hearing centre for Rs 43,400 on August 13, 2016. At the time of purchase, the proprietor, a female doctor, assured the complainant that the hearing loss would be resolved within three months. She also offered a warranty for two years.
The complainant said his sister frequently faced problems with the device and it was repaired at the service centre of the firm at Thalayolaparambu. Later, as per the advice of the proprietor, the device was handed over to the service centre on March 3, 2018, prior to the expiry of the warranty period, on the assurance of a full refund within one month. However, the promise was not honoured, following which he approached the district commission.
The district commission, however, dismissed the petition though the opposite parties did not produce any evidence. The doctor had not responded to the commission’s direction to produce the copy of the registration certificate permitting her to practice as a doctor and also the letter appointing her in the present work.
When the case came up before the state commission, the doctor claimed that she had no connection with the hearing care centre. She contended that she was practising at a different organisation based at the same room where the said hearing care centre once functioned.
The case was considered by the SCDRC bench comprising its president Justice B Sudheendra Kumar, judicial member Ajith Kumar D, and member Radhakrishnan K R.
The state panel found that the evidence submitted by the complainant remains unchallenged as he was not cross-examined by the opposite parties at the district commission.
Taking note of the doctor’s failure to submit the documents sought by the district panel, the SCDRC inferred that the doctor did not do so as it would not be favourable to her. The doctor was thus asked to refund `43,400, `10,000 as damages and `5,000 as cost.
