Person engaged in activities for generating profits would not come under ambit of definition of Consumer

L. G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jaganath Life Care PVT. LTD & Anr. (NCDRC Delhi)

Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) observed that installation of the specific Air-conditioning system without which performance of surgeries in the Operation Theatres would not be possible, renders such installation as being for a commercial purpose i.e. of generating profits/revenues from surgeries. The Complainant therefore would not appear to be a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Facts: In present facts of the case the Appeal was under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranchi in Consumer Complaint No. 06/2011, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed.

The brief facts leading to this First Appeal was that Complainant had placed an order with Opposite Party No. 1, for installation of ‘L.G Multi Power System (MPS) Tropical Plus Air Conditioning System’ in the Hospital and Operation Theatre vide letter dated 09.02.2010 after being satisfied with the Quotation and terms and conditions dated 04.02.2010 sent by the Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant along with the purchase order sent vide letter dated 09.02.2010 had requested the Opposite Party No.1 to submit the piping drawings and unit indoor & outdoor location, pursuant to which they had provided the same which were also approved by the Complainant. It was submitted that as per the offer dated 04.02.2010, the Opposite Party No. 1 was supposed to complete the entire work of designing, supply and installation within 40 days from the date of approval of the drawings, but even after expiry of more than 1.5 years, the Air Conditioning System was not installed and made functional, although a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was received by the Opposite Parties on 12.05.2010. It was further stated that only a cooling system was installed by the Opposite Parties which was not operative even in summers and only a temperature of 32 to 34 C could be maintained in the Operation Theatre. Therefore, a Legal Notice dated 13.05.2011 was issued to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party replied to the Notice and shifted its liability on its dealer/ Opposite Party No.2 thereby failing to remove the defective Air Conditioning System. Being a Hospital, Complainant and its patients suffered problems during operations due to absence of proper Air Conditioning System.

Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 herein, the Complainant filed the consumer complaint. The Complaint was resisted and it was contended by the Opposite Party that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Further, it was stated that the matter could not be adjudicated by the Ld. State Commission in view of the ‘Arbitration Clause’.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.