Name of Complainant	Anuradha Boxwala
Date of Complaint	January 25, 2026
Name(s) of companies complained against	Philips
Category of complaint	Electronic Appliances
Permanent link of complaint	Right click to copy link
Share your complaint on social media for wider reach

Text of Complaint by Anuradha Boxwala:

Product & Service Details
• Product: Philips Oven Toaster Grill – 36 Litre (Model HD6976/00)
• Purchase Age: Approx. 5 years
• Service Request Number: MH2601030528
• Issue Identified: Lower heating element / coil failure

Their authorised service engineer has informed me that the lower heating element is “not available”, and therefore the oven cannot be repaired, advising me instead to purchase a new appliance.

This explanation is completely unacceptable for the following reasons:
1️⃣ Parts Unavailable in Just 5 Years?
Philips is a global brand known for quality and longevity. Declaring a core functional component unavailable within 4–5 years effectively renders the product disposable — which is not aligned with Philips’ brand promise, sustainability claims, or consumer trust.

2️⃣ Product Still Being Sold on Philips Website
Shockingly, the same model (HD6976/00) continues to be listed and sold on Philips’ official platforms.

This raises a serious question:
How can Philips continue selling a product when it cannot support essential spare parts for it?
This is misleading to consumers and borders on unfair trade practice.

3️⃣ Consumer Rights & Legal Implications
Under Indian consumer protection principles: • Appliances are expected to be serviceable for a reasonable lifespan • Critical spare parts must be available for several years post-sale • Advising replacement solely due to part unavailability is not acceptable

If this issue is not resolved promptly, I will be compelled to:
• Approach the Consumer Helpline / Consumer Court
• Share this experience publicly to prevent other consumers from facing the same issue

4️⃣ What I Expect from Philips
I request one of the following resolutions within 7 working days:

Arrange the required lower heating element and repair the appliance, OR
Provide an official replacement / upgrade option at Philips’ cost, OR
Offer a written explanation justifying how Philips considers a 4–5 year old OTG to be end-of-life
Philips customers do not expect their appliances to be discarded simply because spare parts are “not stocked”. I sincerely hope Philips will take ownership of this issue and act responsibly.

Philips responded with an apology and a 30% discount on a purchase.

My response is enclosed:

Dear Philips Home Living Support Team,
This response is issued on record and without prejudice to my rights and remedies under applicable consumer protection laws.

A. Fundamental factual error in your response
At the outset, your email is factually incorrect. I have not purchased an Air Fryer.
The product in question is an Oven Toaster Grill (OTG) —
Philips 36 Litre Oven Toaster Grill, Model HD6976/00.
Your reference to an “Air Fryer model” indicates either a serious lapse in case review or a failure to apply basic due diligence before responding to a consumer grievance.

B. Misrepresentation regarding discontinuation
You claim that the above OTG model is “discontinued and no longer in production.”
However, the same model (HD6976/00) continues to be actively advertised and listed on the official Philips India website as of today.
It is also being sold by some of your partners today.. Images attached… Why would you not replace my item with one of those?

Please clarify, with documentary evidence:
The official discontinuation date of this model, and
How a supposedly discontinued product continues to be marketed on your own platform.
In the absence of such clarification, your statement amounts to misrepresentation.

C. Questionable product lifecycle for a premium appliance
Please confirm whether it is Philips’ stated policy that a high-end, regularly used OTG becomes obsolete to the extent that:
Critical spare parts are unavailable, and
The consumer is left with no repair option,
within what would reasonably be considered the normal product life cycle.
If this is Philips’ position, kindly share the published policy or technical circular supporting the same.
D. Arbitrary nature of the proposed 30% CRP
Your offer of a 30% CRP discount is noted but is entirely unsubstantiated.
Please specify:
The objective basis for arriving at the 30% figure,
Whether depreciation calculations, usage period, or product category were considered, and
Why a consumer should bear financial loss due to non-availability of spare parts, which is a manufacturer responsibility.
E. Illusory and non-implementable nature of the proposed 30% CRP
Without prejudice to the above, please clarify explicitly and in writing the following:
You have proposed a 30% CRP discount without specifying which OTG model(s) this discount is applicable to.
As per your own official website listings:
Model HD6976/00 (36 Litre) — the very model I own — is still being advertised, despite your claim that it is discontinued; and
Model HD6975/00 (25 Litre) is the only other OTG listed, which is significantly lower in capacity and does not meet my functional requirements, nor is it an equivalent replacement for a 36-litre OTG.
In this context, please clarify:
On which specific OTG model(s) is the proposed 30% CRP applicable?
How does Philips justify offering a “replacement” solution that either:
Refers back to the same allegedly discontinued model, or
Pushes the consumer towards a non-equivalent, inferior-capacity product?
In the absence of a clear, equivalent, and available OTG option, the proposed CRP appears to be illusory, impractical, and incapable of actual implementation, thereby reinforcing that the offer does not constitute a genuine or lawful form of redress.

F. Forced brand re-engagement and loss of consumer trust
Further, by offering a discount conditional upon purchasing another Philips product, you are effectively attempting to bind me to the same brand whose failure in product support and spare availability has caused this dispute.

It is unreasonable and unfair to expect a consumer to reinvest in a brand in which confidence has been materially eroded, particularly when the original grievance remains unresolved.

A discount tied to future purchases does not constitute redress; it merely transfers the burden of your product and service failure back onto the consumer.

At this stage, your proposal neither addresses the core issue nor meets the standard of a fair or lawful resolution.

I request a written clarification and corrective response addressing each of the above points within 7 working days.

Failing this, I will be constrained to pursue appropriate escalation and remedies available under law, including but not limited to statutory consumer grievance mechanisms.

I trust Philips will treat this matter with the seriousness it warrants.

—————————————————
Anuradha Boxwala
+91-9810606902

Image Uploaded by Anuradha Boxwala: