Pregnant woman buys AC for comfort, gets faulty machine, given Rs 30,000 payout

The Puducherry consumer commission ordered Whirlpool and service centre to replace a defective AC and pay Rs 30,000 after repeated faults, ignored complaints, and warranty service failures caused hardship.

Air Conditioner AC Puducherry District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Pregnant Women Deficiency in Service

The Puducherry district consumer commission observed that when the women had complained about a defect, it was the bounden duty of the company and the service centre to respond to it. (AI Generated Image)

Written by: Somya Tyagi

7 min readNew DelhiJun 18, 2026 12:39 PM IST First published on: Jun 18, 2026 at 12:39 PM IST

The Puducherry District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission recently held Whirlpool liable for deficiency in service and directed the company and the service centre to replace a faulty air conditioner (AC) bought by a woman for her comfort during pregnancy. The commission also ordered them to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 and Rs 5,000 as litigation costs.

A bench consisting of S Mouttouvel (President), AS Suvitha (Member), and G Arumugam (Member) was hearing a complaint filed by a woman who had purchased a Whirlpool Air Conditioner from Flipkart, which turned out to be faulty from the day of installation itself and the when the woman complained about the same, her concerns were neither addressed by the company and nor by the service centre.

“Being the manufacturer and service centre the opposite parties owe duty to care their customers, but in this case, they failed to do so. As we discussed above, the acts of the opposite parties are inadequate and the manner of performance is not up to the standard in relation to their bounden duty of service,” the May 20 ex parte order read.

Also read | Man awarded Rs 50,000, replacement after washing machine malfunctions in 3 months

‘Leaking water’

The woman purchased a premium Whirlpool split inverter air conditioner from Flipkart at the cost of Rs 33,999, and the billing date of the product was January 14, 2024.
According to the woman, the AC showed severe defects, including failure to cool, gas leakage, and faulty performance right from the day it was installed.
The woman states that despite multiple service requests, the company’s team did utter negligence by delaying service, failing to provide permanent solutions, and repeatedly ignoring the woman’s call.
The situation became further dangerous when the AC started leaking water directly onto the woman while she was sleeping, causing her severe mental trauma, stress, and health issues.
It was also stated that the woman had purchased the AC for peaceful sleep, especially because she was pregnant at that time, and good sleep was essential during the pregnancy.
However, the repeated malfunctioning of the AC caused numerous issues to her, and it resulted in mental stress and even depression due to the company’s lack of response to her calls and queries.
The woman also sent an email to the official email id of the company on January 21, 2025, but there was no response from the company.
The woman had purchased the AC from the company because of its advertisements and reviews, which assured that any defects in the product would be duly managed by the company.
The company, however, failed to provide any support or response, which has caused frustration and disappointment due to the woman.
The woman stated that the only communication received from Whirlpool was a formal acknowledgement that the issue was being reviewed by their support team.
However, no further response or action was taken by the service team. The woman also sent a follow-up email to the company, requesting either a refund or a replacement of the defective product, but there was no reply.
Consequently, the woman also sent a legal notice to the company on March 24, 2025.
Due to the malfunctioning of the product, the woman requested a replacement or a refund from the service centre, but they refused to answer her calls, adding to her distress and financial loss.
Additionally, the company tried to replace a 5-star AC with a 3-star model, which amounted to fraud and deception.
Consequently, the woman also sent a legal notice to the company and the service centre on March 24, 2025. The woman then approached the consumer commission.
Notices were sent to the company and the service centre, but they did not appear before the commission.

Also read | Hero Electric told to replace batteries, pay Rs 20,000 for faulty scooter

‘Duty to care’

The district commission noted that the tax invoice expressly stated that there was a 1-year comprehensive warranty for the AC and a 5-year warranty for the compressor, and that in one month, some important spares were also replaced, though even then, the AC did not function properly and was suffering from repeated defects.

The commission stated that when the woman complained of some defect in the AC, it was the duty of the company and the service centre to appoint an expert to take opinion regarding the defect. But the same was not done by them to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the AC, as said by the woman.

It was acknowledged by the commission that even though the woman had raised the issue with both the company and the service centre, and also requested that the issues be addressed within 7 days, there was no reply from them.

The commission also observed that the company and the service centre were served notice from the commission and sufficient opportunities were given to them to appear before the commission and defend their case, but they neither turned up nor submitted any reply to defend their case, and hence their attitudes “definitely” would attract deficiency in service.

The commission ultimately held that the company and service centre owed “duty to care” to their customers, but they had failed to do so in the present case. The commission was of the view that the acts of the company and service centres were hence inadequate, and the manner of performance was not up to the standard in relation to their duty of service.

Accordingly, the company and the service centre were directed to replace a new AC unit in place of the old one for the woman. The same was to be done free of costs, without any defects and with product warranty.

The company and the service centre were further directed to pay an amount of Rs 25,000 to the woman for compensation for the physical hardships and mental agonies caused due to the deficiency in service and Rs 5,000 for litigation costs.

Significance

The ruling establishes the obligation of the companies to provide replacement and other essential services for faulty appliances, and the fact that the parts must be promptly replaced or repaired without hassle if the appliance falls under the warranty period.

Consumers must also pursue their complaints in consumer commissions so that the companies and service providers at fault are held accountable for their actions.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Puducherry helpline:180-0425-1082) or call the National Consumer Helpline on 1915 for assistance.