Complaint filed on: 13.06.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 20.02.2017

BEFORE THE BENGALURU III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM COMPLEX, 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027          

CC.No.1040/2014

DATED THIS THE 20^th FEBRUARY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

SMT.L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

Complainants: -                            

Sri.Heldy Jose,

Aged about 30 years

Permanent address

R/at Chittilapilly Kunnath House, P.O.Parappur, Thrissur District,

Kerala-680552

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Dr.Vikas Singh,

Chief Medical Director & Cosmetic Dermatologist, Kosmedix Spa pvt. ltd.

Aesthetics with Ethics,

head office No.S103, Manipal Centre, Dickenson road (off M.G.Road), Bengaluru-560042

2. Kosmedix Spa pvt. ltd.

Aesthetics with Ethics, Corporate office no.150,

1^st floor, 2^nd main,

East of NGEF,

Kasturi Nagar,

Bengaluru-560043

ORDER

SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed on 13.06.14 by the Complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act and prays to direct the Opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the entire collected amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with compensation of Rs.1,00,000.    

          2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:-

In the complaint, Complainant alleged that the Complainant is working at Dubai and occasionally visits India, while such one visit, the Complainant saw a paper publication by the Opposite parties and contacted the Opposite parties. The Opposite parties in a paper publication stating that they are giving a treatment which is non-surgical and which controls hair fall and hair loss and based on that paper publication in daily newspaper the Complainant had seen the advertisement and had contacted the Opposite parties. The Opposite parties assured that they will provide non-surgical treatment which in-turn reduce hair fall and hair loss. The Opposite parties had made to believe the Complainant that they give the above treatment which is absolutely safe as the entire procedure is autologous.  The Opposite parties further informed the Complainant that the treatment which is non-surgical hair loss with AAA stem cell and PRP therapy. The Complainant was very worried about his hair fall and after the Opposite parties promised that the treatment will control his hair fall, to make sure that the treatment has no side effect, before taking the treatment the Complainant had personally met the Opposite party no.1 and spoke and revealed the problems and other treatment, tablets which the Complainant had taken. The Opposite party no.1 assured the Complainant that if the Complainant takes up the treatment he will get back all his lost hair and further hair fall will be controlled totally.  Accordingly the Opposite parties had collected Rs.1,90,000/- on various occasions, on 23.01.11 Opposite parties had charged Rs.75,000/- for 25 million AAA stem cell and again on 24.04.12 the Opposite parties had charged Rs.40,000/- for 1-PRP and again on 17.12.12 the Opposite parties had charged Rs.75,000/- for 25 million AAA stem cell. During the treatment the Complainant was supposed to go back to Dubai and informed the same to the Opposite parties, then Opposite party no.1 agreed to give the treatment in Dubai itself provided the Complainant provides the Opposite parties with his flight ticket and other expenses. Further the Opposite parties warned the Complainant not to stop the treatment in between, due to their caution/threat the Complainant accepted to incur all the travel expenses of the Opposite parties and accordingly the Opposite party no.1 had came to Dubai and provided the treatment their and on several occasions made the Complainant to come down to India for treatment. The Opposite parties had promised the Complainant that with the regular use of the above products, the Complainant will regain the hair loss and his hair fall will stop, the Complainant as a bonafide customer as per the Opposite parties suggestion was taking the treatment and as a result the Complainant lost all his hairs and the Complainant was shock to see that all his available hair has also fallen due to the wrong treatment of the Opposite parties and intimated the same to the Opposite parties. The Complainant believed the words of the Opposite parties and had underwent treatment after paying a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and other travel expenses, but the treatment in turn made huge loss and the prevailing hairs too fell due to the wrong treatment given by the Opposite parties. As soon as the Complainant informed about this wrong treatment, the Opposite parties started avoiding the Complainant and started to give evasive reply and further as the Complainant started visiting the Opposite parties frequently, the Opposite parties promised to repay the entire amount and assure to compensate for the loss. The Complainant started visiting the Opposite parties to find out a remedy and Opposite parties no.1 and 2 promised to give back the paid amount and also assured to provide alternative medication for the growth of hairs. But all the promises and efforts went in vein. The Opposite parties had intentionally cheated the Complainant and the Opposite parties were negligent and had caused huge and irreparable loss to the Complainant. The Complainant issued the legal notice dtd.09.04.14, calling upon the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- and to compensate a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  for the mental agony and humiliations, loss incurred by the wrong, false and fraud treatment of the Opposite parties. The notice was served on Opposite party no.2 but failed to comply with the legal notice. Hence this complaint.

          3. In response to the notice Opposite parties put their appearance through their counsel and filed common version. In the version pleaded that the Complainant has contacted Opposite party no.1 on 12.05.11 via internet to sent the mail regarding gathering of information of stem cell and PRP treatment for hair loss to Opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.1 has replied the Complainant’s queries via e-mail. Opposite party no.2 company never give advertisement in Dubai newspaper. If the Complainant has seen the advertisement he is free to produce the paper cut and the date of the advertisement. After going through all the information regarding PRP and stem cell the Complainant has shown interest in taking the treatment and he was totally explained about the results of the said treatment by Opposite party no.1 without any doubt. The Complainant has signed the consent form stating that he has understood all the possibilities of the above treatment and he is solely responsible for his decision to go for stem cell and PRP therapy.  The Complainant himself agreed by and through e-mail that the hair fall is reduced and that he is happy with the results. The Complainant had also stated in the e-mail that he wants to further go for hair transplant. The Complainant has never made the payment of Rs.1,90,000/- to Opposite party no.2 company and if the Complainant has paid so much of amount then he is free to produce the receipts and the mode of payment before this forum.  The Complainant has literally requested and begged to Opposite party no.1 to give him a bill of Rs.1,90,000/- to claim it from the insurance company at Dubai for which Opposite party no.1 refused.  The Complainant has gone to the extent of preparing the statement and told Opposite party no.1 to fill and put it in Opposite party no.2’s letter pad to which the Opposite party no.1 refused to oblige since the Opposite party no.1 is just a consultant and he has no authority to take decision independently regarding Opposite partyno.2 company. It is absolutely absurd and meaningless that Opposite party no.1 will go to Dubai and do the treatment to the Complainant at Dubai which is practically impossible. The Opposite party no.1 can only meet and consult somebody at Dubai but the treatment has to be done only in India. So the statement that Opposite party no.1 will go to Dubai and give treatment to the Complainant carry no meaning and it is absolutely false. The Complainant further contacted Opposite party no.1 for nose correction treatment. If the Complainant was not happy with the 1^st treatment then why the Complainant approached the Opposite party no.1 for the 2^nd treatment. The Opposite party no.2 company has the photographs of the Complainant when he approached the Opposite party no.1’s clinic and the recent photographs which clearly indicates that he has more numbers of hair. Hence the statements made in the complaint is absolutely false. The Opposite party no.2 company is having all the datas, Complainants mails and video footage to prove the facts. The Complainant is intending to cause wrongful loss to Opposite party no.1 & 2 company and denied other averments made in the complaint and prays to dismiss the complaint.

          4. Heldy Jose, the Complainant filed his affidavit. Opposite party no.1 Dr.Vikas Singh filed his affidavit for himself and also on behalf of the Opposite party no.2. We heard arguments of both the parties, now the points arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is a deficiency of service by Opposite parties ?
2. What Order ?

5. Our findings on the above points are:-

              1. Point No.1: In the Affirmative

              2. Point No.2: As per the final order

REASONS

          6. Point No.1: It is the specific case of the Complainant that the Complainant while visiting India, saw the paper publications issued by the Opposite parties and contacted them based on the paper publications and has assured by Opposite parties that they will provide non-surgical treatment which is in-turn will reduce hair fall and hair loss with AAA stem cell and PRP therapy. Complainant had personally met Opposite party no.1 revealed his problem. Opposite party no.1 assured the Complainant to take up treatment and he will get back all his lost hair and further hair fall will control.  The Opposite parties had collected a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on various occasions, on 23.01.11 they had charged Rs.75,000/- for 25 million AAA stem cell and again on 24.04.12 they had charged Rs.40,000/- for 1-PRP and again on 17.12.12 they had charged Rs.75,000/- for 25 million AAA stem cell. The Opposite parties in their version denied these facts. So it is on the burden of the Complainant to prove these facts in order to prove the allegations made in the complaint. The Complainant in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced the receipt issued by Dr.Vikas Singh, Chief Medical Director and Cosmetic Dermatologist i.e. Opposite party no.1 and this receipt is issued in the name of the Opposite party no.2. As looking in to this receipt it is very clear that Opposite party no.1 had collected a sum of Rs.75,000/- on 23.01.11 for 25 million AAA stem cell treatment. On 24.04.12 Opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.40,000/- for 1-PRP treatment and on 17.12.12 Opposite party had collected another sum of Rs.75,000/- for 25 million AAA stem cell.  Totally Opposite parties collected a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from the Complainant for the treatment of 25 million AAA stem cell via Meso Gun with Nappage mode, speed of 200inj/mint. Missed in PRP and diluted to 30ml. This evidence of the Complainant is not challenged by the Opposite parties even though the Opposite parties in their version denied this fact.  The evidence of the Complainant is un rebutted thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant after seeing the paper advertisements of the Opposite parties approach the Opposite parties for taking treatment for hair fall and hair loss and he paid total sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on various dates for the treatment of 25 million AAA stem cell and 1-PRP.

          7. It is further case of the Complainant that Opposite parties had promised the Complainant that the regular use of the above products, the Complainant will regain the hair loss and his hair fall will stop, the Complainant as a bonafide customer as per the Opposite parties suggestion was taking the treatment and as a result the Complainant lost all his hairs and the Complainant was shock to see that all his available hair has also fallen due to the wrong treatment of the Opposite parties. This fact is also denied by the Opposite parties in their version. On the other hand in their version they take a defence that the Complainant himself agreed through email that the hair fall is reduced and that he is happy with the results and further they take the defence that Opposite party no.2 company has photographs of the Complainant when he approached the Opposite party no.1 clinic and recent photographs which clearly indicates that he has more numbers of hair. So it is on the burden of the Complainant to establish that after taking treatment with Opposite parties, Complainant lost of his hairs and hair fall has not stopped. In order to establish this, Complainant in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and also produced the legal notice. As looking in to this legal notice it is very clear that on 09.01.14 Complainant issued the notice to the Opposite parties informing that even after taking treatment, the Complainant did not get back his lost hair and demanded for re-pay back the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- with compensation of Rs.1 lakh. But Opposite parties in support of their defence Dr.Vikas Singh in his sworn testimony reiterated the same and produced consent for meso therapy and also the reply notice. No doubt as looking in to this, Complainant gave his consent for the meso therapy and Opposite parties have issued reply to the legal notice, but that itself is not sufficient to substantiate their defence. On the other hand their specific defence is that Complainant himself agreed through email that the hair fall is reduced and he is happy with result. If it is so, the Opposite parties ought to have produced the email sent by the Complainant, informing that he is happy with the treatment of the Opposite parties, but Opposite parties have not produced such documents. Thereby adverse inference can be drawn and itself falsifies the defence taken by the Opposite parties. So also Opposite parties have taken the defence that when the Complainant approached the Opposite party no.2 company has photograph of the Complainant, when he approached the Opposite party no.1 clinic and recent photographs which clearly indicates that he has more number of hairs. Even in support of this defence also if the Opposite party no.1 is having photographs of the Complainant before he has approached the Opposite party no.1 for treatment and photographs of the Complainant after taking treatment to establish that Complainant had more number of hairs, Opposite parties ought to have produced those photographs but he fails to produce the same. Thereby it falsifies the defence taken by the Opposite parties.

          8. On the other hand as contended by the Complainant after taking treatment, the hair fall of the Complainant still continued for that reason only the Complainant issued legal notice demanding the Opposite parties to pay back the sum of Rs.1,90,000/- which is collected for the treatment by the Opposite parties and also compensation. So from this material evidence placed by the Complainant, it clearly goes to show that there is deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite parties. If Opposite parties have given proper treatment, the hair fall of the Complainant has to be stopped but even after taking treatment from Opposite parties the hair fall of the Complainant is continued and the Complainant lost his hairs. Thereby it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties. Hence we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

          The complaint against Opposite party no.2 is dismissed.

          2. The complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service by the Opposite party no.1.

          3. The Opposite party no.1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs.One lakh ninety thousand only) to the Complainant.

          4. The Opposite party no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs.Fifty thousand only) as compensation for causing mental agony to the Complainant.

          5. The Opposite party no.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five thousand only) towards costs.

          6. The Opposite party no.1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 45 days from the date of this order. Failing which a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- (Rs.One lakh ninety thousand only) shall carry interest at 18% p.a. from the date of this order, till the date of repayment.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 20^th February 2017).

MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Heldy Jose, the Complainant was examined.

2.     Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-

        1. Original bill

2. Original legal notice dtd.09.01.14

3. Original Postal Receipts

4. Original RPAD card

5. Original returned unserved cover

3.    Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite

        parties by way of affidavit:

Opposite party no.1 Dr.Vikas Singh was examined

4.     Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite

        parties:-

1. Consent for mesotherapy
2. Legal notice sent by the Complainant counsel to the Opposite parties dtd.09.01.14
3. Reply legal notice sent by the Opposite parties counsel to the Complainant’s counsel dtd.15.02.14
4. RPAD receipts sent to the Complainant’s counsel by Opposite party’s counsel
5. RPAD Acknowledgement received by Opposite party’s counsel

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT