| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/374/13 Date of Institution:- 25.07.2013 Order Reserved on:- 14.05.2024 Date of Decision:- 18.11.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Gaurav Singh S/o Sh. Balraj Singh R/o B-3 Parivahan Apartment Sector-5, VasundharaGaziabad .….. Complainant VERSUS Managing Director Advanced Hair Studio Clinic A-13, Pamposh Enclave Next to Greater Kailash-1st New Delhi – 110048 .…..Opposite Party ORDER Per Dr.HarshaliKaur, Member - Lured by the popularity of the OP studio and convinced by the promises made by the OP executive, the complainant,who was looking for anti-baldness treatment, paid the sum of Rs.1,31,257/- for laser procedure which could extend up to 10 months, from the OP on 08.06.2021.The complainant began the treatment but found no improvement/cure for his hair loss. Even after the treatment was over, he saw no significant changes in his hair loss problem.
- Dissatisfied with the OP's treatment, he wrote e-mails to the OP, who did nothing to find a solution to resolve his grievance. He states that at the time of hiring the services of the OP, the complainant was promised that his hair fall would stop completely and immediately within the first sitting itself as his hair fall problem was at the primary stage and hence, his hair would be restored entirely within the course of the treatment which did not happen despite their false assurances.
- The complainant, therefore, filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He has prayed for a refund of Rs.1,31,257/- with penal interest, Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment faced by him and Rs.25,000/- towards litigation cost.
- On Notice, the OP filed the reply. The OP states that the complainant took all the sittings and consultations, and his grievance is that he could not regrow his hair, being fully aware that there was a possibility of failure of the treatment because of his individual and personal, biological, bio-physical and genetic factors. He signed a declaration at the time of seeking treatment from the OP, accepting that the success of the treatment would differ from person to person.Annexure-R1 is the copy of the declaration signed by the complainant. Since there is no 100% cure for baldness and regrowth at present, the OP denies ever suggesting any cure for the complainant's baldness as it is not possible.
- Further, the OP contends that baldness occurs for various reasons, which may be irreversible, despite the use of methods of stimulating hair growth. The OP offered advanced laser treatment to:
"-Stop the hair loss and save existing hair. -Thicken your existing thin and weak hair. - Regrow hair in areas where the hair follicles are still alive but deep rooted. - To improve your scalp condition. Breakthrough in Hair Regrowth: In a university clinical trial, 86% of men treated with Advanced Laser Therapy actually experienced hair regrowth within 4 months, using a combination of Advanced Laser Therapy, aFDATMApproved hair regrowth pharmaceutical and a proven scalp and follicle hair loss treatment program." - Laser therapy was given to the complainant in an attempt to regrow hair, but the effectiveness of any method would be different from person to person as the same depends on a number of biological and genetic factors, including whether the hair follicles of a person are still alive and capable of regrowing. A person may not respond to one method but may respond to some other method of hair regrowth.
- Further, the OP alleges that the complainant consulted with the OP last on 24.06.2008 and thereafter never visited the OP or took any advice for any further treatment. He filed the present complaint after more than five years had lapsed after his last consultation. He has also not placed on record any evidence to show that he has not benefited from the treatment wilfully taken by him from the OP in the form of his hair condition before and after the treatment.
- The complainant filed rejoinder and evidence by way of an affidavit to reiterate the averments made in the complaint. The OP filed the affidavit of Sh. Devang M. Shah, AR of the OP who, also echoed the statements made in the reply. Both parties filed their written arguments, and the order was reserved.
- We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have perused the documents filed by the contesting parties to substantiate their respective testimonies.
- The complainant was allured by the OP's advertisement, which allegedly assured the clients of fixing any kind of hair loss problems regardless of age and gender and offered a 100% guarantee in the advertisement. The complainant has annexed the newspaper with the ad of the OP with his complaint as Annexure – A (Colly)
- He, therefore, agreed to get the hair loss treatment from the OP and paid for the Laser Treatment after he was counselled by the OP executives who represented that the entire treatment would be conducted and supervised by highly qualified doctors who were specialistsin the field.The complainant paid Rs.62,629/- on 09.06.2011 and Rs. 22,000/- towards the total amount for the laser treatment of Rs.1,31,259/-. The invoice and receipts forthese payments were issued to the complainant and are annexed with the complaint as Annexure- B (Colly).
- The complainant alleges that he found no improvement even after three months of the treatment, but every time he approached the OP regarding the undesirable results, he was falsely assured of improvement in his condition in a little while. Hence, he continued the treatment on their assurance for the complete ten months, taking more than 50 sittings.But his hair fall problem remained unchanged. When he approached the OP seeking advice regarding no change in his condition, he was told to continue the treatment for another ten months on extra payment.
- The complainant has annexed the e-mails he sent to the OP as Annexure-E dated 12.09.2012 and again on 29.03.2013, apprising the OP of his grievance and asking for a refund of his paid consideration amount. When the OP took no action to resolve his grievance, the complainant filed the present complaint.
- The OP stated that the complainant had approached the OP on 14.01.2011 seeking a remedy for his hair fall. Before starting the treatment, he signed a declaration (Annexure-R1) at the time of wilfully opting for the Laser Treatment for his Hair Loss issue wherein it was clarified that the success of the treatment varies from person to person. The therapy was administered as promised. In the absence of any documentary proof to show that he did not benefit from the OP's treatment, this complaint deserved outright dismissal. Further, the complainant's last consultation with the OP was on 24.06.2008, after which he never visited the OP for any discussion and later filed the present complaint for unfair gains after five years of taking the complete treatment.
- In our view, a bare perusal of the e-mail dated 12.09.2012 clarifies that after starting the ten-month Advanced Laser Therapy procedure for his hair fall issue on 08.06.2011, the complainant was dissatisfied with the results which he stated he informed the OP doctor that there was no improvement in his condition even after three months of taking the treatment. He was informed that he would start seeing changes in the following months. However, the complainant wrote that he could not see any changes, and some patches had worsened. On visiting the OP clinic, the complainant was urged to continue the treatment for another ten months. Dissatisfied with the OP's response, the complainant wrote another e-mail dated 29.03.2013 seeking a refund.
- The OP has not placed on record any evidence to show the basis on which the complainant was assured or given the advice of continuing treatment after he informed the OPdoctor about no improvementin his condition despite taking the laser therapy for three months. Neither has the OP placed on record any cogent evidence like their prescription card or any suggested medical tests to show that the complainantdid not react to the laser therapy given by them due to the personal, biological, bio-physical and genetic factors, as mentioned by them that could have affected the treatment results.
- It is clear that the OP took no active steps to resolve the complainant's issue when he informed them of the deterioration of his condition.In their own testimony, the OP stated that a person may not respond to one method but may respond to another method of hair regrowth. However, despite the knowledge that the Laser Treatment taken by the complainant was unsuccessful, they asked him to continue the same treatment for 10 months instead of offering him a substitute treatment.
- Further, the OP has contended that the complainant sought to regrow hair. However, the complainant has repeatedly only sought treatment for hair fall in his testimony and not regrowth of hair. In their own testimony,advanced Laser Treatment is prescribed to clients to
-
-Thicken your existing thin and weak hair. - Regrow hair in areas where the hair follicles are still alive but deep rooted. - To improve your scalp condition. Breakthrough in Hair Regrowth: In a university clinical trial, 86% of men treated with Advanced Laser Therapy actually experienced hair regrowth within 4 months, using a combination of Advanced Laser Therapy, a FDATM Approved hair regrowth pharmaceutical and a proven scalp and follicle hair loss treatment program." - A bare perusal of the advertisement of the OP on the basis of which the complainant took the therapy package is reproduced below:-
100% guarantee to give you a full head of hair & restore your appearance. - This statement nowhere clarifies that the 100% guarantee to give a client a full head of hair and restore their appearance was only applicable when the client would take a suitable combination of the different treatments, including cosmetic and clinical treatments offered by itas testified by the OP in the evidence filed by the OP to be read in evidence.
- The advertisement is misleading in nature solely intended to lure in clients with misleading claims inducing consumers without corresponding benefits due to which the complainant expected that his hair fall issue would be halted and he would get a full head of hair.
- In our considered view, the OP was lackadaisical in their approach qua the complainant and deficient in their service as promised to him by not paying heed to his complaints made after taking a few sessions after three months of starting treatment.
- Hence allowing the complaint we direct the OP to pay to the complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the mental agony and pain he suffered and Rs.5,000/- for litigation cost.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 18.11.2024.
| |
