Can HDD with hidden errors still be considered reliable?

[RPT]

Would you install your operating system to HDD which once has been failed with errors detected?
Now MHDD can't find any errors.
Even if PC is of home user and not much of importance, it still requires a lot of time to install.

Manufacturer's hide errors and likely want end users to believe there is no risk continuing to use such device.
Smart is usually rather difficult to interpret and often not much of help there either.

History:
Seagate ordinary 2TB HDD with Windows 7 boot partition.
Windows 7 failed to start and couldn't be recovered from restore points.
MHDD test find 2-3 errors.

Disk was considered faulty and replaced with new HDD.

A week later MHDD didn't found any errors on this old disk.
I guess bad sectors were just relocated.

Does it means disk is now healthy or still unreliable and better to avoid using?
Also it's difficult to receive RMA accept to such HDD which passes tests.

[jermy]

IMHO even a brand new out of box is not reliable, because it's called seagate

[lcoughey]

Please define errors. My guess is that you saw warnings for slow reading sectors that is not uncommon for most drives during a full scan.

[RPT]

Errors I mean RED ones in MHDD, not just slow sectors.
(Specially which brick Windows 7 installation and make Windows 7 unrecoverable.)

I understand that misreading is by design of modern HDD technology and are compensated with other techniques.

But hiding/ remapping bad sectors doesn't feel legal in a sense, that it easily leaves false imagination that there is no problems.
Also to get RMA may be difficult due to manufacturer's obscure politics.
Unfortunately it feels like general PC support is not capable to understand SMART.

Comes into mind something like Volkswagen is cheating emissions tests and taking huge fines now.

[DRUG]

If a car showed you signs of a motor failiure would you call it reliable ?

TBH, even OOTB disks are not realiable, and I know Murphy would back me up on this.