CHENNAI: A customised artificial finger prosthesis was supposed to help a man regain some functionality after he lost two fingers in an accident. Instead, the Rs 20,000 product he received was allegedly of the wrong size and colour and did not have the promised thumb impression.The man approached the Pudukkottai district consumer commission after the company allegedly failed to correct the defects or refund his money. The commission has now ordered the company to return the amount and pay another Rs 20,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.In its order, commission president T Sekar and member S Sugunadevi held the company responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
US Midterm Election Results 2026
“The opposite party assured a specific size, colour, and thumb impression, delivered a product that did not match, and then declined redress. This amounts to an unfair trade practice,” the order read.A prosthesis that did not fitThe complainant, an engineering graduate, had lost two fingers of his right hand in an accident. Seeking a customised replacement, he approached the company on June 23, 2025, and paid Rs 20,000 for an artificial finger prosthesis.The company allegedly promised to deliver the product within 45 days, with the required size and colour and a thumb impression.However, the promised deadline passed without delivery, the complainant said. He also alleged that the company did not respond to his phone calls.He eventually travelled to Chennai on September 5, 2025, to collect the prosthesis. But the product he received did not meet the specifications he had requested. It was of the wrong size and colour and lacked the promised thumb impression, according to his complaint.The man told the company that the prosthesis could not be used and sought a correction or replacement. He alleged that the company neither provided a replacement nor returned the money.The complainant further submitted that the delay and failure to supply a functional prosthesis affected his ability to appear for examinations.Company fails to respond to complaintAfter the company did not respond to a legal notice seeking a refund and compensation, the man approached the consumer commission.Despite being served notice, the company neither appeared before the commission nor filed a response. The commission, therefore, proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the complainant’s evidence and documents.It found that the prosthesis did not conform to the specifications promised by the company and was unusable for its intended purpose.“It was unusable for the purpose of which it was ordered, so the customized service was not performed as promised,” the commission noted.The commission also took note of the company’s failure to rectify the defects, replace the product or refund the payment.Holding the company liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission observed that its conduct had caused the complainant hardship and mental agony.It directed the company to refund the Rs 20,000 paid for the prosthesis, along with Rs 10,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and another Rs 10,000 towards the costs of the proceedings.
