DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 11/2014
Date of Institution 03/01/2014
Order Reserved on 15/09/2016
Date of Order - 17/09/2016
In matter of
Mr.Puneet Kumar Mittal, adult
S/o – Sh Gauri Kumar
R/o- HN 785, sec 11
Vasundhara Enclave, Ghaziabad, UP……....………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Body Care
Slimming and Beauty clinic,
29, Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi
2-Md. Ivya Sood,
Managing Director, The Body Care
Slimming and Beauty clinic,
29, Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi…………………………….Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate -Sh O N Sharma
Opponent- Ex Parte
Quorum - Sh Sukhdev Singh- President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
Complainant was a fatty person and wanted to reduce his body weight quickly. He was a businessman and feeling difficulty in performing his office work.
Complainant after seeing a paper advt. which was an impressive advertisement as per his need, got interested in the programme. Thereafter, he visited OP’s place for taking slimming therapy. OP assured him for getting his weight reduced as per the package shown to him. Complainant was satisfied with a package schedule of a sum of Rs 34,708/-and paid a part of package amount as Rs 20,000/-. OP issued receipt vide invoice no. 20 dated 10/04/2013.
As per given schedule, complainant visited twice on 23/04/2013 and 24/04/2013 but did not get the assured slimming therapy, so he wanted to contact the managing director, OP2, but he could not meet. He sent number of emails, letters through courier and also sent a legal notice to OP for refund of his fee as paid.
After receiving number of reminders from complainant, OP1 contacted complainant and assured for a useful therapy as per his need. OP also assured for restart of therapy session as a fresh. But complainant was not satisfied, so, he insisted for refund, but OP were willing to give a fresh therapy session.
Not getting his refund amount and replies of his correspondences, he filed his complaint claiming refund of a sum of Rs 20,000/- with compensation of sum Rs 2 Lac for mental harassment and litigation charges Rs 35,000/-
Notices were served to Ops, but did not put up their appearance nor submitted written statement and evidence. OPs were given ample opportunity for presenting their version, When OPs were not represented till the date of arguments, OPs were proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant submitted his evidence on affidavit which were on record. Arguments were heard and order was reserved.
After seeing all the facts and evidence of complaint, it was seen that complainant had deposited part amount to a sum of Rs 20,000/- for getting body weight loss.
After seeing OP bill, terms and condition for payments were printed which reads as “once paid amount would not be refunded”. Complainant had put his signature also. Meaning thereby that complainant had agreed for all the terms of OPs. But there was not single evidence which could be seen for weight reduction process as how much he wanted to reduce his body weight. No body measurements record were filled before starting therapy and OPs sitting schedules for reduction of body weight. There was no undertaking for therapy sessions for weight reduction before starting slimming therapy and how much OP would reduce after completion of therapy. Complainant had also not submitted any material pertaining to slimming by offered therapy of weight loss by OP which could be implied for weight reduction.
Hence, we come to conclusion that deficiency of OP has not been proved by complainant on merit or by evidence. Therefore, this complaint deserves dismissal, hence, complaint is dismissed without any cost.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
Mrs -Harpreet Kaur- Member (Dr) P N Tiwari Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
