Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/280/2022

Sanya Kansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Clinic Dermatech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Amresh Kumar Khajuria

15 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/280/2022
Date of Institution	:	08/03/2022
Date of Decision	:	15/01/2024

 

Sanya Kansal, H.No.1633, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160069.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Clinic Dermatech Pvt. Ltd., SCO 145-146, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh.
2. Clinic Dermatech Pvt. Ltd., D1, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Ms.Deepika Choudhary, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Rahul Makkar, Advocate for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant approached the OPs at their new office for Laser hair removal treatment. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- for complete body treatment and she had already paid a sum of Rs.14,160/- for the Peals Treatment (Annexure C-1 to C-3). But as the staff present at the new office was not experienced/qualified enough to perform the task that they were given, it had left severe burn marks on various body parts of the complainant (Annexure C-4 & C-5). Also, the machines being used by the OP company were not up to the mark and were very old which lead to a lot of body pain and burning sensations after every sitting. The OP company failed to perform treatment to the satisfaction of the complainant as they were always out of the colored peals which were very important for the said treatment and whenever the complainant used to enquire about the same, the OP used to give one or the other vague excuse. The OP company has itself admitted that the complainant had received certain marks on her face. Although, they have claimed that this happened due to her sensitive skin but nothing of this sort had happened earlier when she took similar treatments. The OP company has itself admitted to its mistake and therefore had offered to get the complainant treated from the dermatologist. The complainant went to the office of OP company several times to consult the dermatologist but he was never available. The complainant asked the OP No.1 for refund of her entire money paid for the said treatment. However, OP No.1 refused to refund the amount deposited by the complainant for the purpose of the above treatment. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant had availed various service from the OP company since 2018 till the filing of the present complaint i.e., 2022 as she is fully satisfied with the service of the OP company. Further, the complainant has always provided excellent review to the OP on her each and every visit. It is further stated that the complainant just got temporary marks on her face due to sensitive skin which is a totally normal thing to happen during such procedures. It is submitted that such are temporary effects and can easily be rectified with proper and timely care. It is also stated that facial treatment in May, 2018 for an amount of Rs.14,160/- and for that she had paid Rs.12,000/- and ensured the OP company that she will pay the remaining amount on her next visit but till then she has not paid the remaining amount. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that the OPs were negligent in providing skin treatment, despite charging the full amount of the package. The complainant has annexed photographs Annexure C-4 & C-5, showing that there was some burn marks on her face post-treatment which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. It has been alleged that due to these burn marks she faced humiliation mental agony and stress, therefore, prayed for refund of the entire amount paid to the OPs since year 2018.
7.     Evidently, as per Annexure C-1, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,500/- in year 2018 and got three sittings on 20.04.2018, 12.05.2018 and again 12.05.2018, thereafter again paid an amount of Rs.14,160/- for the services to be availed on 20.04.2018 and 5.5.2018. Meaning thereby the invoices attached are of the year 2018 only, but the present case has been filed on 7.3.2022. Though it is admitted on the part of OPs that she availed services repeatedly since 2018 till October 2021 and raised the objections of wrong treatment in year 2022 only. For coming to the conclusion of the present case we need to first of all see the deficiency in services on the part of OPs by appreciating the evidence/documents on record. There is no other documents accept photographs Annexure C-4 & C-5 showing some mark over the face of the complainant, but there is no concrete evidence on record in the shape of expert opinion of any doctor or prescription by any expert doctor for the treatment of the scars, appearance of which has been alleged due to the treatment by the OPs. Not only this, complaint has taken dual stand stating on one hand that staff of the OP is neither experienced nor qualified and on the other hand nothing of this sort (burns) had happened earlier when she took treatment earlier. The above statements of complaint are not of any help to prove her case.
8.     We opine that the complainant has not only harassed the OPs by filing a false/fabricated complaint, rather has wasted precious time of the Commission as well. As there is no evidence on record to corroborate the allegation of the complainant, as such, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
9.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
15/01/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member