The grievance of the complainants is as follows:-
1. The complainant has approached the opposite party for the treatment of baldness and hair fall on the basis of information availed on social media in the first week of January 2022. It is stated in the complaint that the first complainant had remitted Rs. 23,500/- and the second complainant remitted Rs. 23,000/- to the opposite party through Google pay and cash payment. The opposite party assured the complainants that there would be no baldness if undergoing treatment for 22 days continuously and in case no result was achieved within 45 days, the opposite party would refund the entire amount to the complainants. In the first step of treatment, the opposite party had given platelet rich plasma (PRP) along with a bottle containing 100 ml serum. But there were no product description, details of product contents, manufacturing details, date of manufacture and expire and price details on the bottle of serum. The opposite party told to the complainant that there need not pay any attention to those things and if no result was achievement then refund option was available. So relying on the assurance given by the opposite party, the complainant undergone treatment as per the direction of the opposite party. But no result was achieved as assured by the opposite party. Then the opposite party given one more P.R.P. along with another oil for its application. But there were no product details shown on the product. The complainant stated that after using the medicine, hair fall had increased and no positive result was achieved. When the complainants contacted the opposite party, the opposite party sought for some more time and advised to use one more bottle of oil. It is also informed by the opposite party that graft would be grown up very soon. It is averred in the complaint that even after continuous use of medicine as prescribed by the opposite party there was no result for curing the baldness of the complainants. The first complainant even lost his transplanted hair by the use of medicine prescribed by the opposite party. The complainants were again contacted the opposite party to get relief for their hair fall. The opposite party advised the complainant to use Neo serum and minoxidil in alternative days and collected a total amount of Rs. 23,000/- from the complainants. But the treatment provided by the opposite party was defective. The complainants alleged that the opposite party cheated them and including public. The complainants are stated that the opposite party threatened them when the complainants were demanded for refund of the amount spent for treatment. The opposite party even sent a legal notice stating false allegation against the complainants and attempted to tarnish the reputation of complainants especially that of the first complainant who is working as a teacher. As a result, by using the products given by the opposite party, the hair of the complainants were fell out and severe physical discomfort including headache had affected. The complainants alleged that the opposite party committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainants. So the complainants prayed for a direction to the opposite party to refund the total amount paid for the products. The complainants also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation to the complainants.
2. The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party. The opposite party received notice on 12/07/2022 but he filed his version only on 12/09/2022 i.e. beyond the statutory period. So the Commission did not accept the version of the opposite party and proceeded the matter as exparte.
3. The first complainant filed affidavit. The documents filed by the firstcomplainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A8 documents. Ext.A1 document is the copy of advertisement given to the products of the opposite party on social media. Ext.A2 document is the copy of prescription undated given by the opposite party to the first complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of prescription dated 01/01/2022 issued by the opposite party to one Mr. Shabeer. Ext. A4 document is the copy of prescription dated 13/04/2022 given to the first complainant by the opposite party. Ext. A5 document is the copy of the prescription dated 03/02/2022 issued to the second complainant by the opposite party. Ext. A6 document is the copy of google pay screen shot showing the payment made to the opposite party by the first complainant. Ext. A7 document is the copy of google pay screen shot showing the payment made to the opposite party by the first complainant. Ext. A8 document is the copy of legal notice issued to the complainant by the opposite party. As per Section 38(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record. The Commission gone through affidavit filed by the first complainant and could seen that the affidavit was signed by the first complainant only. Moreover the first complainant did not specifically affirmed or sworn the affidavit for and on behalf of the second complainant. So the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence is limited to the evidence of first complainant only. At the same time, there is no contra evidence available in this case as the opposite party is remained as exparte.
4. Heard the complainant. Perused documents and affidavit availed for evaluation of evidence. The Commission finds the following points for its consideration:-
- Whether the acts of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice or
deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
- Relief and cost of the proceedings.
5. Point No (1) & (2):-
The first complainant alleged that he had undergone treatment of the opposite party for baldness and hair fall. The complainant came to know about the treatment of the opposite party through social media. The complainant produced copy of advertisement given to the product of the opposite party and marked it as Ext. A1 document. The complainant averred that he had paid Rs. 23,500/- to the opposite party for purchasing products for the treatment of baldness and hair fall. It is further averred that the first complainant and second complainant together paid another Rs. 23,000/- to the opposite party for purchasing products in connection with treatment. The complainant produced copies of screen shots of the remittance of money made through google pay App and those documents are marked as Ext. A6 and A7 respectively. Ext. A6 and A7 documents are clearly shows that the first complainant made payment of Rs. 18,500/- through online transaction. It is stated in the affidavit and in the complaint by the first complainant that remaining amount was paid directly to the opposite party. As there is no contra evidence available. The Commission finds that the first complainant had paid Rs. 23,500/- to the opposite party and later stage he again remitted Rs.11,500/- i.e, half of amount of above mentioned Rs. 23,000/-.
6. It is alleged by the first complainant that there was no result for the treatment of opposite party even though he was continuously used the products as prescribed. The complainant stated that he was cheated by the opposite party. The first complainant produced copies of prescription issued by the opposite party and marked as Ext. A2 to A5 documents by the Commission. The copy of prescription undated is marked as Ext. A2 document. The copy of prescription dated 01/01/2022 is marked as Ext. A3 document. The copy of prescription dated 13/04/2022 is marked as Ext. A4 document. The copy of prescription dated 03/02/2021 is marked as Ext.A5 document. The Commission cannot find the name of any person in whose favour Ext. A2 document was issued. Ext. A3 document shows that the prescription was issued in favour of one Shabeer, who is not a party in this proceedings. Ext. A4 is issued in favour of the first complainant. Ext. A5 document is issued in favour of the second complainant, whose evidence is absent in this proceedings. The complainant has alleged that treatment of the opposite party was not effective to the other clients also. In the evaluation evidence, the Commission considered Ext. A4 document in favour of the first complainant. Analysing the evidence, the Commission also finds that the complainant has undergone treatment of the opposite party to cure the hair fall and baldness and spent a total of amount Rs. 35,000/- and no result was acquired in the treatment. Moreover it has come out in evidence that the opposite party has assured refund of expenses incurred for treatment in case of failure in treatment.
7. It is alleged by the complainant that the products given by the opposite party did not contain description of date of manufacture and expiry, price details, details of contents of products etc. The complainant stated that when he enquired about those details of product, no proper answer was given by the opposite party. But the first complainant did not produce the products or its bottle before the Commission. As long as any evidence on that aspect remains absent, the Commission cannot act upon the contention of the complainant.
8. The complainant stated that the opposite party threatened him of physical assault and even attempted to tarnish his image prevailed among public when he demanded the refund of amount spent for purchase of products. The complainant also produced a legal notice allegedly sent by the opposite party to the complainant and same is marked as Ext. A8 document. But Ext. A8 document shows that the legal notice was sent by another person, not under the instruction of opposite party. So the Commission does not want to go with the legality of Ext. A8 document. The Commission also decline to address serious allegation like defamation and threatening of assault by the opposite party as the first complainant was availed with opportunity to take the law in motion before appropriate forum. The Commission consider the contention of the first complainant that he had suffered physical discomfort and loss of hair due to the use of product under the treatment of the opposite party. The complainant even lost his transplanted hair by the use of products of the opposite party. So it is evident that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the first complainant. As there is no evidence on the part of second complainant in this case, the Commission allows the complaint partly in favour of first complainant only. So the Commission allows the complaint in the following manner:-
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees Thirty five thousand only) to the first complainant as the amount received by the opposite
- party for the treatment of hair fall and baldness.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) to the first complainant for the sufferings of physical discomfort, mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the first complainant as the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party is directed to comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of this order till its realisation.
Dated this 29th day of May, 2023.
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A8
Ext. A1 : Document is the copy of advertisement given to the products of the
opposite party on social media.
Ext. A2 : Document is the copy of prescription undated given by the opposite party
to the first complainant.
Ext. A3 : Document is the copy of prescription dated 01/01/2022 issued by the
opposite party.
Ext. A4 : Document is the copy of prescription dated 13/04/2022 given to the first
complainant by the opposite party.
Ext. A5 : Document is the copy of the prescription dated 03/02/2022 issued to the
second complainant by the opposite party.
Ext. A6 : Document is the copy of google pay screen shot showing the payment
made to the opposite party by the first complainant.
Ext. A7 : Document is the copy of google pay screen shot showing the payment made
to the opposite party by the first complainant.
Ext. A8 : Document is the copy of legal notice issued to the complainant by the
opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER
