Soma Technology, Inc.

Our engineer fixed the system and made it completely functional without changing DFI - as we had expected. He was on location on 01/21/14 – one day late due to a family emergency – but completed his job and got the system functional. 
He stayed next day to rechecked the system for continues satisfactory functioning of unit before handling over to customer on 01/22/14.
On basis of our discussion on 01/24/12 on customer's request for alternative options -- we submitted the options on 01/24/14 and resend it on 01/28/14 and on 02/04/14.
We fixed the unit under warranty and are committed to satisfactory functioning of equipment sold by us and our support.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
Soma Technologies has their dates incorrect.  Their technician arrived on 1/21 but was not able to complete the job until the afternoon of 1/22.  Consequently, we began seeing our first patient on 1/23/14.  In total, the c-arm was not functional from 1/14/14-1/22/14.  We did not see patients from 1/14/14-1/23/14.  We lost significant revenue in the process, worth much more than the original price we paid for the c-arm.  In addition, this will impact us in the future, as many of our referring physicians believe that we are not reliable and do not have functional equipment. 
 
Furthermore, per my conversations with [redacted] (on 1/23/14) , he was willing to compromise and was going to provide options for an extended warranty or a trade in and purchase of a [redacted] unit.  These quotes / alternatives still have not been provided. 
 
We are asking for a full refund at this point - despite their verbal willingness to provide satisfaction, we still have not received any of their suggested remedies for this situation.
 
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Product: Refurbished [redacted]
Customer [redacted] **
Invoice # 130212-02  Dt: 01/24/2013...

 Amount: $66400.00 including In-service & Installation
 
On Thursday 05/23/13
We received a complaint from [redacted] at [redacted]  – Nature of complaint:  C-Arm freezes.
On analyzing the nature of complaint – we decided to send a [redacted] local
service engineer to check the system.  Same day - We scheduled a service call
for a site visit directly with [redacted] services.
 
On Friday 05/24/13
Local [redacted] Engineer -- goes for site visit and informs us that there
is error in the DFI and suggested that we change the complete DFI.  DFI is
a complete assembly of the controller of the C-Arm. [redacted] refused to check
further and insisted that the whole assembly costing $22,000.00 plus labor
- needs to be replaced.
In order to not to take a** chances, we placed an order with [redacted] for
a new DFI to be replaced, thus incurring a cost of $25,012.00.
 
On Tuesday 05/28/13
DFI assembly arrived and on the same day the [redacted] engineer replaced
the new DFI and unit started function satisfactorily.
  
On 01/13/14 – 
We received a complaint from the customer : Nature of
Complain: System Error
We analyzed the complaint and decided to send local Ex [redacted] Engineer
to visit the site and inspect the unit.
 
On 01/14/14
Local engineer visited the location but could not access the system- as
his license for the login software had expired. Since he was unable to access
the unit, he did not provide a** diagnosis.
We immediately contacted [redacted] Services and asked them to send their
local engineer again to check the system.
 
On 01/15/14
The [redacted] local engineer visited the site to inspect the unit. He
informs us that he finds the problem with same DFI assembly - which [redacted] had
replaced with complete new assembly on 05/28/13 and suggested that the DFI
needed to be replaced again.  They refused to accept a** responsibility
for the failure of their completely new assembly – which they had installed on
05/28/13 and had charged us $25,012.00. For second replacement of the DFI,
their warranty on it would again be only 30 days.
 
On 01/16/14  -
We consulted the [redacted] and informed him that we suspect DFI need
not be changed and seems local error related to hard drive which can be fixed
in-house without changing the entire DFI assembly again. We are interested in
providing him a long term and cost effective solution and we have an expert
engineer based in [redacted] who we believe will be able to rectify the problem
without changing DFI and we are arranging his flight from ** to **.
 
We assured him that if the problem is not what we suspect and will
require new DFI – SOMA will pay $25,000.00 again to [redacted] and replace the
whole DFI - as his system is under warranty from SOMA  and we will stand
by our warranty and commitment.
Our engineer fixed the system and made it completely functional without
changing DFI - as we had expected. He was on location on 01/21/14 – one day
late due to a family emergency – but completed his job and got the system
functional.
We stand by our warranty and commitment and will continue to do so.
Customer is demanding a full refund after utilizing the system for
almost 11 months and after the fact that Soma Technology is providing him
service and is  standing by our warranty
and commitment. Customer  has bought the
system from SOMA and not [redacted] . SOMA is providing service and warranty  for this refurbished C-Arm system and we have the right to access the problem
and provide solution to make the system functional . In order to do so, to
change the part or not, or to install a new or pre-owned part , is at
the sole discretion of Soma Technology. 
 
Our
engineering team and network has been providing effective services since 1992. We will continue to support the system under warranty.
 
 
Documents Attached
–
SOMA invoice –
[redacted] invoice for DFI purchase and installalation.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because: We are still awaiting details on the options regarding resolution.  Two of the three options have been provided that were discussed.  We are also waiting on the specifics regarding the ** c-arm that we are considering for trade, and the pricing for the full buy back of the current [redacted] c-arm.
 
Of note, we have already noticed issues with the c-arm again (less than a month after repairs).  Emails to Soma were sent on 2/17/2014 regarding the nature of the new issues.  They did reply back on 2/18/2014, but we are not sure if the aforementioned issues (or complete malfunction) will occur in the next 2 days, 2 weeks or 2 months.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: In November 2013 a refurbished, [redacted] Plus Ventilator was ordered from Soma Technology in the USA, for delivery to South Africa, and for use on board an ambulance.Prior to payment I asked Soma Technology a number of specific questions to confirm that this product was a suitable ventilator for use on board an ambulance. Soma Technology confirmed in writing that the product was indeed appropriate for use on board an ambulance. The product subsequently arrived in South Africa at the end of January 2014 and it was immediately apparent that the product was not suitable for use on board an ambulance. A subsequent query to [redacted] in South Africa confirmed that the ventilator was indeed not appropriate for use on board an ambulance. I contacted Soma Technology and stated my concern about the product, as well as the feedback from [redacted] USA which contradicts the statements made by Soma Technology about the suitability of the unit in the ambulance environment.Soma Technology replied saying that they were very surprised by the response of [redacted] in South Africa as the [redacted] 8000 Plus was regularly used by ambulance services in the USA. I then contacted [redacted] in the USA directly who confirmed that the [redacted] 8000 Plus was designed for use in hospitals only and should never be used on an ambulance.I forward this written confirmation from [redacted] in the USA to Soma Technology and requested that they refund our company for the unit that was incorrectly sold to us, and requested that Soma Technology arrange for the ventilator to be collected in South Africa and returned to the Soma Technology offices in the USA.Since this point Soma Technology have simply ignored all of my emails and seem totally uninterested in resolving the problem that they have created.I would like as many international clients as possible to know that Soma Technology is not a reliably supplier. They will lie about product capabilities and will not resolve your complaints after selling a product to you.Desired Settlement: I would like Soma Technology to refund the full purchase price of the [redacted] 8000 Plus as well as the shipment costs to South Africa, and for Soma to arrange for the unit to be shipped back to them at their own cost immediately after the refund has been processed.

Business

Response:

Review: The Zoo placed an order for an Philips HP PageWriter 200. The item received was a used machine and damaged. The customer service has been non-responsive.Desired Settlement: We would like a full refund for this product.

Business

Response:

Dear Revdex.com,

I have already mailed a response on 2/20/2014 to this claim but in summary here is what happened. On December 30th 2013 I received a phone call from Linda Falk from Friends of the Zoo. She told me that they went on our website and saw the Philips HP PageWriter 200 and wanted a quote on that refurbished unit. On December 31st the customer called back and told me that they received my quote and wanted to place the order right away. I never quoted them a new Philips HP Pagewriter 200, I quoted them a refurbished unit. In fact this particular product has not been manufactured for over 7 years. So even if I wanted too sell them a new one I couldn't because they are no longer being manufactured.

I personally inspected the unit before it was shipped and it was in very good condition as well as the box that it was shipped in. There was no damage to this unit or its shipping container. In fact we have a 1 year warranty on ALL PARTS and LABOR. If there was any damage to this unit we would have repaired it right away at no cost to the customer. On our Terms and Conditions that is located on our quote it does state we do have a 25% restocking fee charge. To appease the customer we refunded 75% of the cost to the customer right away even though we did everything we were obligated to do.

If you can please respond at your earliest convenience that would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Soma Technology

Consumer

Response:

Soma Technology

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

While I appreciate Soma's response, never did I request a "refurbished" unit nor was I informed the unit we requested a quote on was a refurbished unit. This is not a piece of equipment I am familiar with or would know that it is not currently available. I have attached the quote we received along with the emails. As I stated, a "refurbished" unit is never mentioned nor is the restocking fee noted. We request a full refund.

Sincerely,

Linda Falk

Kansas City Zoo

Business

Response:

Dear

In response to Linda Falk and CompIaint ID [redacted] I have attached

the quote that I provided to Linda as well as her original email requests for

that specific make and model on December 30, 2013. I stated in my quote to Linda that our equipment is brought back to the Original

Equipment Manufacturer’s Specifications (OEM).

That means we refurbish the product back to the original equipment

manufacturer’s specifications, which includes: complete inspection, replacement

of necessary parts, disassembly, cleaning, repair, recalibration, cosmetic

maintenance, and confirmation that the equipment is in working order. Everything that I just stated is on the note section of my quote to Linda.

It clearly states that “All equipment comes with a ONE YEAR

Warranty on PARTS and LABOR including

FREE Lifetime Technical Phone Support unless otherwise mentioned. All our equipment is brought to original

equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) specifications through disassembly, inspection,

cleaning, repair, replacement of necessary parts and calibration, including

special cosmetic restoration giving all equipment a quality finish.” If this

was a new piece of equipment why would it have to be repaired, disassembled,

inspected, cleaned and having to replace any necessary parts on the unit and

also go thru a cosmetic restoration? All of these steps are the refurbishing

processes. I never once stated to Linda or on my quote that this equipment was new. I quoted her that all our equipment is brought back to the ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS (OEM).

Per the

terms and conditions that Linda says she was not aware of. The terms and

conditions link is clearly located on the bottom right of my quote. We do have

a company policy on returns of 25% for a restocking fee. The terms and

conditions are also very accessible on our website where Linda first went and found

the product she requested a quote for. On Linda’s second response she never

mentioned any damage to the product at all which she first stated on her

initial claim and why they returned the item. I personally inspected the unit

before it left Soma Technology and then personally inspected the unit when it

arrived back at Soma Technology. Let me make it very clear the unit was not damaged,

the product was in good condition and working properly. With this all being

said to appease Linda we did return her 75% of the purchase price to Linda

right away. Even though we did nothing wrong as a company.

When Linda

and her counterpart Dr. [redacted] who both had requested this product went

online and searched for it. They would have seen that make and model is no

longer selling new because it has not been manufactured for over 8 years. When

I first spoke with Linda on the phone, Linda expressed to me that they were in

a hurry to purchase the unit because it was the end of the year and they had

extra funds and had to purchase the unit right away because they would loose

these funds if not spent. After the quote was sent to Linda she then emailed me

back requesting to purchase this product. Then Linda called me from her cell phone on

her day off and gave me the credit card information to process the order and wanted

to make sure that the invoice was dated December 31st 2013. That was

Linda’s only request which I fulfilled for her. I did attach those emails as

well.

Regards,

Soma Technology

Review: We contacted SOMA on Tuesday 1/14/2014 (and cancelled all patient cases) because of a non-functional c-arm (that they sold us, with full warranty).They obtained numerous opinions, in the process, delayed our operations and patient care. The FIRST OPINION was with independent contractor [redacted] who said that a module needs to be replaced. The module could have been ordered on Tuesday (1/14/14) - arrive / installed on Wed (1/15/14) - and we would be able to see patients starting Wed afternoon. Instead, they sent a [redacted] contractor (second opinion), [redacted], who gave the same recommendation (module needs replacement). Module could have been ordered on Wed (1/15/14), and arrive / installed on Thurs (1/16/14).Instead, in order to cut their own costs, they contacted their own engineer. We were initially told that he would fly in on Friday (1/17/14). Then we were called and told that he would fly in Mon (1/20/14), and then Tues (1/21/14). In order to save their own profit margin and their bottom line, they sacrificed our patient care. Financially, this was a HUGE loss for our clinic - much more than the cost of the device that needed to be repaired.We cancelled cases 1/14/14 to 1/21/14. Many of these patients will NEVER come back, and many referral sources will NEVER send patients to us again.Again, necessary part could have been ordered and installed by the independent contractors that evaluated the device in 1 business day. They took over 7 total days to even attempt repairs.It is now 9 days and counting; their repair guy ([redacted]) gives the same opinion - the module needs to be replaced. Currently, after attempting the fix, the c-arm is completely non-functional. [redacted] specifically admits that Soma "could have ordered the part and installed last week", but "they did not to save money." [redacted] is currently attempting the fix, which he says may take "another day or two." Soma still has not ordered the module, which ALL THREE technicians recommend is the right action.Desired Settlement: The logical solution is full refund of the product. There is no reliable way for us to know if device will work in future. Soma takes short cuts to protect their own profit margin. Despite one independent contractor's opinions, and one manufacturer's tech's opinion, they did not replace the entire module. Instead, they hired one of their own guys, fixed a small part (instead of replacing module per professional recommendations). We demand a full refund of the purchase price.

Business

Response:

Product: Refurbished [redacted]

Customer [redacted]

Invoice # 130212-02 Dt: 01/24/2013 Amount: $66400.00 including In-service & Installation

On Thursday 05/23/13

We received a complaint from [redacted] at [redacted] – Nature of complaint: C-Arm freezes.

On analyzing the nature of complaint – we decided to send a [redacted] local

service engineer to check the system. Same day - We scheduled a service call

for a site visit directly with [redacted] services.

On Friday 05/24/13

Local [redacted] Engineer -- goes for site visit and informs us that there

is error in the DFI and suggested that we change the complete DFI. DFI is

a complete assembly of the controller of the C-Arm. [redacted] refused to check

further and insisted that the whole assembly costing $22,000.00 plus labor

- needs to be replaced.

In order to not to take a** chances, we placed an order with [redacted] for

a new DFI to be replaced, thus incurring a cost of $25,012.00.

On Tuesday 05/28/13

DFI assembly arrived and on the same day the [redacted] engineer replaced

the new DFI and unit started function satisfactorily.

On 01/13/14 –

We received a complaint from the customer : Nature of

Complain: System Error

We analyzed the complaint and decided to send local Ex [redacted] Engineer

to visit the site and inspect the unit.

On 01/14/14

Local engineer visited the location but could not access the system- as

his license for the login software had expired. Since he was unable to access

the unit, he did not provide a** diagnosis.

We immediately contacted [redacted] Services and asked them to send their

local engineer again to check the system.

On 01/15/14

The [redacted] local engineer visited the site to inspect the unit. He

informs us that he finds the problem with same DFI assembly - which [redacted] had

replaced with complete new assembly on 05/28/13 and suggested that the DFI

needed to be replaced again. They refused to accept a** responsibility

for the failure of their completely new assembly – which they had installed on

05/28/13 and had charged us $25,012.00. For second replacement of the DFI,

their warranty on it would again be only 30 days.

On 01/16/14 -

We consulted the [redacted] and informed him that we suspect DFI need

not be changed and seems local error related to hard drive which can be fixed

in-house without changing the entire DFI assembly again. We are interested in

providing him a long term and cost effective solution and we have an expert

engineer based in [redacted] who we believe will be able to rectify the problem

without changing DFI and we are arranging his flight from ** to **.

We assured him that if the problem is not what we suspect and will

require new DFI – SOMA will pay $25,000.00 again to [redacted] and replace the

whole DFI - as his system is under warranty from SOMA and we will stand

by our warranty and commitment.

Our engineer fixed the system and made it completely functional without

changing DFI - as we had expected. He was on location on 01/21/14 – one day

late due to a family emergency – but completed his job and got the system

functional.

We stand by our warranty and commitment and will continue to do so.

Customer is demanding a full refund after utilizing the system for

almost 11 months and after the fact that Soma Technology is providing him

service and is standing by our warranty

and commitment. Customer has bought the

system from SOMA and not [redacted] . SOMA is providing service and warranty for this refurbished C-Arm system and we have the right to access the problem

and provide solution to make the system functional . In order to do so, to

change the part or not, or to install a new or pre-owned part , is at

the sole discretion of Soma Technology.

Our

engineering team and network has been providing effective services since 1992. We will continue to support the system under warranty.

Documents Attached

–

SOMA invoice –

[redacted] invoice for DFI purchase and installalation.

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Soma Technologies has their dates incorrect. Their technician arrived on 1/21 but was not able to complete the job until the afternoon of 1/22. Consequently, we began seeing our first patient on 1/23/14. In total, the c-arm was not functional from 1/14/14-1/22/14. We did not see patients from 1/14/14-1/23/14. We lost significant revenue in the process, worth much more than the original price we paid for the c-arm. In addition, this will impact us in the future, as many of our referring physicians believe that we are not reliable and do not have functional equipment.

Furthermore, per my conversations with [redacted] (on 1/23/14) , he was willing to compromise and was going to provide options for an extended warranty or a trade in and purchase of a [redacted] unit. These quotes / alternatives still have not been provided.

We are asking for a full refund at this point - despite their verbal willingness to provide satisfaction, we still have not received any of their suggested remedies for this situation.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

Our engineer fixed the system and made it completely functional without changing DFI - as we had expected. He was on location on 01/21/14 – one day late due to a family emergency – but completed his job and got the system functional.