MSCDRC Dismisses ₹76 Lakh Complaint Against Siemens Over MRI Machine, Rules Dispute Was Commercial Transaction

Mumbai, June 6: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (MSCDRC) has dismissed a consumer complaint filed by Bhiwandi-based Rais Diagnostic Centre against Siemens Healthineers, holding that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction and therefore did not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.

“As contended by Siemens, the MRI service is merely one of many revenue streams for the complainant. If a professional has multiple established sources of high income, the ‘livelihood’ exception under the Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) cannot be invoked to shield what is clearly a business-to-business (B2B) transaction. The Commission takes a serious view of the complainant’s own pleadings. Throughout the complaint, the complainant has repeatedly sought damages for ‘loss of business’. There is a distinct legal difference between ‘loss of livelihood’ and ‘loss of business’. By framing his grievances around the interruption of a profitable commercial cycle, the complainant has effectively admitted that the MRI machine was a capital asset intended for a commercial purpose,” the order copy maintained while dismissing the plea.

Complaint and allegations

The complaint was filed by Dr Arshad Anwar Rais, proprietor of Rais Diagnostic Centre, who had purchased a pre-owned MRI machine from Siemens Healthcare Private Ltd in February 2012 for Rs 66 lakh.

He alleged that the machine never functioned properly after installation and suffered from multiple technical defects, including image artefacts, temperature control issues, chiller malfunction, leakage problems, and defects in several components.

According to the complaint, Siemens engineers repeatedly attempted repairs and replacements for nearly three years but failed to make the machine operational.

Dr Rais contended that despite replacing various parts, including the temperature control unit and other components, the MRI machine remained unusable, causing substantial financial losses and reputational damage to his diagnostic business.

He further alleged that Siemens later demanded an annual maintenance contract worth Rs 4.8 lakh before providing software passwords necessary for operating the machine, a condition that had not been disclosed at the time of sale.

Seeking relief, the complainant sought a refund of the Rs 66 lakh purchase price with interest and Rs 10 lakh compensation for mental harassment, relying on an expert opinion obtained in 2017 that reportedly described the machine as defective and unsuitable for reliable diagnostic use.

Siemens’ defence accepted

Siemens opposed the complaint, arguing that the MRI machine had been purchased for commercial purposes and that the complainant operated a network of at least eight diagnostic centres offering services such as MRI scans, CT scans, and digital X-rays.

The company maintained that the machine was functional, that service support had been provided, and that any subsequent maintenance required an annual maintenance contract after expiry of the warranty period.

The Commission accepted Siemens’ contention, observing that the complainant was running a large-scale diagnostic business rather than using the equipment exclusively for earning a livelihood through self-employment.

It noted that operating multiple diagnostic centres with advanced medical equipment and staff constituted a commercial enterprise aimed at generating profits.

Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Commission held that the purchase of the MRI machine was for a commercial purpose and that the complainant therefore did not qualify as a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Also Watch: