Apple, Croma Ordered to Refund iPhone Cost After Owner’s Death Linked to Device Issue

In a case that raises serious questions around consumer responsibility and after-sales service, Apple and retail chain Croma have been directed to refund the cost of an iPhone to the family of a deceased customer. The consumer court’s decision came after the man’s wife alleged the device had a defect that caused him repeated stress and inconvenience before his sudden death.

What the Case Was About
The complaint was filed by the widow of a Mumbai-based man who had purchased an iPhone from a Croma store. According to her, the phone developed technical issues shortly after purchase. Despite multiple service visits and attempts to repair it under warranty, the problems persisted.

She claimed that her husband, already dealing with health issues, faced repeated stress due to the device’s malfunction and poor customer support. Not long after the last service episode, he passed away.

Consumer Forum’s Decision
While the court did not directly link the death to the device, it acknowledged the distress caused by the defective product and the lack of satisfactory support. The forum concluded that the customer did not get the service he was promised and that the complaint was valid.

Both Apple and Croma have now been ordered to refund the cost of the phone along with a small compensation amount for mental harassment and litigation costs.

What It Means for Consumers
The case is significant for buyers, especially in Tier 2 cities where access to quality after-sales service can often be limited. Many customers spend large sums on premium gadgets, expecting reliability and support—but often feel helpless when products fail and companies are slow to respond.

The ruling sends a message that even large corporations can be held accountable if they fail to meet service standards.

No Direct Blame, But Clear Responsibility
Importantly, the court did not blame Apple or Croma for the man’s death. But it did hold them responsible for failing to address his repeated complaints, which in turn added unnecessary mental strain.

This distinction is key—it’s not about proving a death was caused by a phone, but about recognising that poor service can have deeper consequences when health and stress are involved.

Conclusion
This case isn’t just about a refund—it’s a reminder that consumer rights don’t end after the sale. For brands, especially in India’s growing digital and mobile market, the expectation isn’t just to sell—but to support. And for customers, this verdict reinforces the right to demand both.