SANGEETA filed a consumer case on 19 Feb 2021 against BODY CARE in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/119/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 11 May 2022.
6.5.2022 – CC/119/2019
Through V.C.
By separate order the matter has been disposed off, by which complainant has been granted following reliefs: -
File be consigned to record room.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
| Smt. Sangeeta W/o Shri Nitin R/o Village Behta Hazipur P.S. Loni, Ghaziabad. U.P.
Presently residing at – A-149, Defence Colony, Bhopura, Ghaziabad, U.P. |
….Complainant |
Versus
| ||
| The Body Care Slimming & Beauty Clinic 29, Defence Enclave, Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092 |
……OP1 |
Date of Institution: 03.04.2019
Judgment Reserved on: 13.04.2022
Judgment Passed on: 06.05.2022
QUORUM:
Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)
Ms.Ritu Garodia(Member) –on leave
Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)
Order By:Sh. Ravi Kumar, Member
JUDGEMENT
On the advertisement placed by the OP as CW1/1, the Complainant was induced to have weight lose therapy of 10 Kg. from OP and the total cost of the package was to Rs.12,744/- which was paid by Complainant as per CW1/2 - CW1/4. The therapy was given by the OP to the Complainant by way of electronic equipments on 28.11.2017 and after that the Complainant suffered from vomiting/giddiness/headache and problems in her stomach skin and she went for treatment at GTB Hospital on 30.11.2017 as per CW1/5 where she was given treatment. The Complainant thereafter did not go for further therapy with OP and requested for refund of amount as it was agreed that in case of any problem the amount will be refunded to her. However, this did not happen and the amount was not refunded by OP to her. The Complainant had availed the services of OP as above, however, due to adverse effect in the therapy used by the OP for reducing the weight the Complainant suffered from medical problems. The OP despite the service has neither appeared/filed any evidence nor argued the matter. The Complainant is able to establish her case.
Perused. Considered.
Although there is no direct evidence filed by the complainant w.r.t. suffering from certain health issue on account of this treatment yet one fact is clear that despite informing the OP, by the complainant orally as well as through legal notice, that she would not take further treatment, the OP did not respond. The fact that complainant has not taken any treatment after first sitting with the OP qua this treatment has not been repudiated by OP. Therefore, complainant has been able to establish that there is some deficiency on the part of OP. Although she has not been able to prove that such treatment has adversely effected her health issues, yet she has also been able to prove that despite not availing complete treatment, her balance amount was not refunded as assured. In totality to meet the justice this Commission held OP liable for deficiency in service w.r.t. not returning the balance amount.
Accordingly, the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to refund Rs.7500/- out of Rs. 12744/- to the complainant alongwith 9% interest from date of filing of this complaint, to pay Rs.5500/- in totality as legal expenses and mental agony etc to complainant.
(Ritu Garodia) Member | (Ravi Kumar) Member | (S.S. Malhotra) President |
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.