| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.37/2010 Sh. Anirudh Kumar R/o D-1, 2nd Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016 ….Complainant Versus Dr. Shalini Wig Rediscover D-12/D, Hauz Khas, New Delhi- 110016 ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 20.01.2010 Date of Order : 20.09.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Briefly put, complainant paid sum of Rs.20,000/- to Dr. Shalini Wig of Rediscover (hereinafter referred to as OP) for Hair Reduction on Chest and Abdomen.
- It is stated that complainant saw an advertisement regarding Laser Treatment for permanent Hair Reduction published in ‘News of the week’. The said advertisement gave an impression that Hair Reduction Treatment is permanent cure. Complainant visited Dr. Shalini Wig on 30.03.2008 and was told that the said treatment was to be completed in seven sittings. Therefore, the complainant paid sum of Rs.5,000/- on 30.03.2008, amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid on 20.04.2008 and sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid on 17.08.2008 against bill-cum-receipts. Receipts of the said bills are annexed as annexure C/2.
- It is next stated that the complainant went through the process on the advice of OP; however after getting the treatment done the Hair again grew on his Chest and Abdomen. The complainant informed the same to OP but did not get any satisfactory reply. It is stated that OP had made false representations to the complainant and took payment of Rs.20,000/- in the name of Laser Treatment for permanent Hair Reduction on Chest and Abdomen, which is unfair trade practice and amounts to deficiency of service.
- It is thus prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- the amount paid to respondent @24%.Additionally OP be directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation.
- OP resisted the complaint stating inter-alia that the complaint against OP is totally false and fabricated. OP is a qualified and experienced Doctor, who made her best efforts to treat the complainant. However, the complainant did not comply with the instructions and advice to be followed during the course of the treatment. He was rather very casual and from time to time OP instructed him to follow the instructions for best results. As regards the growth of Hair on the Chest and Abdomen of the complainant after getting the treatment, OP has specifically denied the same and submits that the complainant should be put to strict proof of the same.
- It is also stated by OP that on bill-cum-receipt, it is very clearly mentioned that money once deposited is not refunded; however, it can be adjusted against any other treatment after 20% deduction in the amount paid. It is thus stated with the complaint is baseless, misconceived and not tenable. Therefore, it should be dismissed with heavy cost.
- Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions are filed on behalf of the parties. Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
- Complainant’s case is that after getting the treatment from OP, Hair again grew on his Chest and Abdomen. Complainant has nowhere in his complaint mentioned time/period when his hair grew back .Moreover complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove the same. No photographs or any other evidence has been filed to substantiate his claim. Bald averments have no value in the eyes of law.
- It is noticed from the advertisement appended with the complaint at page No.6 that the treatment is that of Laser Permanent Hair Reduction. We think, it was misunderstood by the complainant as Laser Permanent Hair Removal. The treatment given to the complainant was of Permanent Reduction of Hair so as to avoid thick growth over the targeted portions of the body. OP had offered Laser Treatment for Permanent Hair Reduction and not for permanent vanishing of the Hair.
- It is further noticed that the complainant was to take seven sessions for the treatment to be complete, whereas a Laser Card exhibited as Exhibit RW-1/A with the evidence shows that the complainant attended only six sittings. The treatment as such was not complete. It is also noticed that the complainant paid OP in instalments and there is gap of four months in between the second and the third instalment paid by the complainant. We are of the opinion that four months is a sufficient time to know whether the treatment of OP was working fine or not and if the complainant was dissatisfied by the services of OP, the complainant had the opportunity of not paying the last instalment and alleging deficiency on part of OP. Therefore, it is assumed that he was satisfied with the services of OP that is why he continued taking the services of OP.
- In view of the discussion above and as the complainant could not satisfactorily prove any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice by OP, the complaint does not merit consideration and is therefore dismissed.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
