Consumer protection: Retailer held liable for selling defective earpiece

"We undertake to repair/replace all material and manufacturing defects within the warranty period." The National Commission concluded this made it equally responsible for repair or replacement

Daljit Singh Rattan, who was 91 years old, had lost about 80 per cent of his hearing faculty. To overcome this problem, he purchased a hearing aid manufactured by Sivantos India from its retailer HearClear Clinic in Mohali. 

 

As the equipment was defective, he approached the clinic to resolve the issue. Despite attempts to attend to the faults, the defects continued to persist. 

Since his grievance was not redressed, Rattan filed a complaint before the Mohali Consumer Forum, alleging that the equipment had a manufacturing defect. He argued that the moulded attachment, necessary for hearing aids to function properly when used by turbaned Sikhs, was not provided. He also argued that the hearing aid was damaged when the clinic staff dropped it during one of the visits. 

The clinic contested the complaint. Since Rattan had not made the manufacturer a party to the dispute, the clinic argued that it could not be held responsible for a manufacturing defect. It claimed that the wax in Rattan’s ears was causing the problem and that there was no evidence to show that the equipment had a manufacturing defect. 

Rattan countered the allegations by producing a report from Indus Hospital, which stated that he had been regularly getting his ear cleared of wax. He also produced a report from Ears Solutions, an authorised dealer of Sigma Hearing Aids, which inspected the equipment and found it to be damaged. 

Since the reasons given for the malfunctioning of the equipment were rebutted, the Forum concluded that the hearing aid was defective. It ordered HearClear Clinic to refund the entire amount of Rs 60,000 along with 9 per cent interest. A period of 30 days was given for compliance. Any delay beyond this period would attract interest at an enhanced rate of 12 per cent per annum. In addition, Rs 30,000 was awarded as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation expenses. 

HearClear Clinic challenged this order before the Punjab State Commission, but its appeal was dismissed. The clinic then filed a revision petition before the National Commission. It reiterated its contention that it could not be held liable for a manufacturing defect. It also questioned the finding that the equipment was defective without obtaining a test report from an  “appropriate laboratory”, as mandated under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

The National Commission observed that the invoice issued by the clinic mentioned “three years of warranty and three years of free services at all HearClear Clinic locations” and “we undertake to repair/replace all material and manufacturing defects within the warranty period”. So, it held that HearClear Clinic would be a service provider and equally responsible for repair or replacement of the device in the event of any manufacturing defect. Hence, it could not escape its responsibility merely because the manufacturer had not been made a party to the complaint. 

Accordingly, by its order of November 11, 2024, delivered by the Bench of Justice A P  Sahi and Bharatkumar Pandya, the National Commission held that HearClear Clinic had been rightly held liable for deficiency in service. The revision petition was dismissed, and the order in Rattan’s favour was upheld. 

The writer is a consumer activist