Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Coimbatore
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
CAVEAT EMPTOR
Don't forget to assert your right
BHARATH JAIRAJ
|
Manufacturers have no business to sell contaminated and hazardous products, especially to kids
|
"Buy one, get one FREE!" How many times have you seen this promise screaming at you in advertisements and on the walls of department stores and supermarkets? How many times have you wondered how these kind and generous manufacturers will ever make profits, if they are forever giving something "free" whenever they sell a product? And how many times have you had that nagging doubt, that maybe, there is something here that is just not right?
You think, perhaps, the manufacturer has marked up the price of the product, so that you believe that you are paying for one product and getting the other free, but in reality, you are paying for both products? This does not seem illogical, since companies seem to be able to afford expensive celebrity endorsements and primetime advertisement slots — apart from these "free" products.
What about the other doubt you have? Have you often wondered if these "free" products are being dumped in the market — either because they didn't sell or because they are close to their date of expiry? One consumer learned the answer to this question — but after a miserable experience.
Some months ago, Sowmya Reddy had gone wandering through the aisles of a well-known supermarket with her two sons, picking up groceries and some ready-to-eat food. She noticed a particular brand of packaged fruit juice (that her sons thoroughly enjoyed) had a "buy one, get one free" offer. Being an alert consumer, she looked for the "best before" date and confirmed that the products were still in their "best" condition before dropping them into her shopping bag (much to the delight of her sons).
The next evening, she took the juices out of the refrigerator and went to get glasses to pour it into. Since these juice cartons came with plastic straws, the boys just peeled off the covers and began drinking the juice. When Mrs. Reddy returned with the glasses, she sternly took the cartons away, and poured the juice into them.
To her horror, she found some greenish black substance floating in the juice. She immediately took the children to the nearby paediatrician. By the time the boys were examined by the doctor, they were complaining of stomach pain, nausea and fever. The paediatrician confirmed that both her children were suffering from food poisoning.
Livid, Mrs. Reddy called the supermarket and screamed at them for selling contaminated products. She also took photographs of the juice. The next morning she sent a letter to the supermarket and to the manufacturer of the packaged juice, asking them to withdraw the product from the market and to reimburse her children's medical expenses. One week later, when she got no reply (not even a phone call) from either party, she decided to file a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Redressal Forum.
She filed just four documents before the Forum — (i) her complaint (detailing the facts); (ii) the bill (to prove she had purchased the juice cartons); (iii) the photographs of the contaminated juice and; (iv) the doctors' certificate confirming food poisoning.
The manufacturer's take
The manufacturer responded by arguing that — (a) in their opinion Mrs. Reddy had opened the juice and left it open for 3-4 days allowing algae-like substances to contaminate the juice, before it was consumed and; (b) they had personally checked other cartons from the same batch of the juice and found them without any defect, and that therefore, it was impossible that these particular cartons of juice could have been contaminated.
The Forum would have none of this though. From the dates on the bill and the doctor's report, they ascertained the products had been consumed a day after purchase. They also dismissed the argument that the failure to find contamination in the randomly checked cartons was conclusive in proving that these particular cartons were not. They were convinced that the manufacturer and the supermarket were jointly liable for the sale of the contaminated juice cartons and directed them to pay Rs.50,000 to Mrs. Reddy as compensation for the pain and suffering.
Mrs. Reddy won the case only because she was assertive and committed to proving that manufacturers had no business to sell or offer to sell contaminated and hazardous products — especially to children. But from the arguments made by the manufacturers in this case, it is obvious that they still don't comprehend the importance of consumer rights. And therefore it is imperative that all of us assert our rights, as Mrs. Reddy did, so that we can help correct this situation soon.
The writer works with CAG, which offers a free `Consumer Advice Clinic' to assist citizens in finding answers to queries or complaints they may have. Contact 24460387 / 24914358 or cag.helpdesk@gmail.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Coimbatore
Delhi
Hyderabad
Kochi
|
