DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.682/2006
Shailaja Baunthiyal,
R/o Flat No.18, Sector-22, Pocket-I,
Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. …. Complainant
Versus
1. Eleganza Rejuvenation Centre,
(also known as Seema Diagnostics and Eleganza),
D-8, Second Floor, Near Dial A Meal Restaurant,
South Extension Part-II,
New Delhi.
2. Dr. Seema Malik,
D-8, Second Floor,
Near Dial A Meal Restaurant,
South Extension Part-II,
New Delhi. …Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 21.11.06 Date of Order : 22.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The Complainant saw an advertisement of OP No1 in the newspaper as she was suffering from superfluous facial hair and she visited the clinic of OP No.1 in November, 2005 for taking consultation for the treatment through laser hair removal. The manager of OP No.1 attended her and assured her that her problem was only a minor and once she will be treated by the qualified doctor her problem would be cured in five sittings. They further assured her that if the problem is not solved in five sittings as expected they will give another sitting. She was impressed upon and the Manager of OP No.1 stated that the charges for the treatment are flexible as she can pay whatever amount was available with her and she could pay the balance amount later on. The entire treatment was for Rs.5,000/- out of which she had deposited Rs.1500/- on the same day and the treatment was commenced on the same day but OP No.1 applied some cream on her face and it remained for 5-10 minutes; when she enquired she was told that the cream was an integral part for the treatment. Thereafter she visited the OP No.1 on 09.01.06. The OP No.1 asked her to deposit the entire balance amount. She told the OP No.1 that she could pay the balance amount after four sittings but OP No.1 flatly told her that the entire amount had to be deposited in advance of the treatment. As she was carrying only Rs.2000/- at that time, she paid Rs.2,000/- and promised them to make the payment of the balance amount on the next date of sitting. The OP No.2 told her that 15% of the result will be seen after the first session. But after first session she noticed that there was more hair growth than usual, she panicked and called the OP No.1. The OP No.2 assured her that it was quite normal in the initial stage. The next sitting was in the month of February. OP No.2 sent her straightaway for the laser treatment without application of any cream. They informed her that cream was not required anymore. This time another doctor V. D. S. Malik treated her and she made the payment of Rs.1500/- through her credit card. She found that there was no positive result, rather there was an increase in the growth of the hair which was alarming to her. She talked to Doctor Malik who told her that it could be due to some hormonal problem and she could consult OP No.2 about the same during the next sitting. Thereafter, she had repeatedly contacted the OP No.1 for getting the third sitting done and finally she got third sitting in the month of March but the doctor arrived after one hour and she had to cancel her all business appointments and engagements for attending the session. The treatment was commenced after application of cream by OP2. She was advised that she might have a hormonal disorder and advised her that she should get the test conducted for the same. The OP No.1 told her that the same test will be conducted in their clinic and she will get 50% rebate. As she was not satisfied with the OPs she decided to get this test done elsewhere. In first two sittings, she was made to sign on a medical report. On the third sitting, she was shocked to see the doctor’s observations on the sheet stating that she had shown improvement and had less growth of hair. It was absolutely false and she was told that the remark meant nothing and was just a record of the sittings conducted. She got her hormonal test done from Dr. Lal’s lab, Hauz Khas in which she had spent an additional amount of Rs.1500/-. She had also consulted Dr. Rachna Verma, a Gynecologist at the Institute of Spinal Injuries and she was informed that her tests were normal. When she received no response/communication from the OP No.1 she contacted OP No.1 at Rajouri Garden clinic, she spoke to OP No.2 and she was informed that due to the MCD sealing drive for commercial properties they could not hold any sitting at the South Ex. Clinic and offered her alternative place. As she had to attend a function on 19th April she requested the OP No.2 to complete the fourth sitting before that day but she did not receive any call till 25.04.06. She called up OP No.2 and she was asked to come for the sitting in the first week of May, 2006. On 05.05.2006, she visited for the fourth sitting but she was again made to wait for an hour for no reason. This time she was treated by a different Doctor Mr. Ajit and she suspected that he is not a qualified doctor. She was not satisfied about the treatment and she wanted to discuss the case with OP No. 2 but it was told that she would need to take appointment to meet with OP No.2. When she asked about the same she was told that the doctor who had attended her was busy in giving the treatment to another person. She was disturbed that neither she was given a proper status of her treatment nor her treatment was being properly followed up and since her report was being written by three different doctors. For the fifth sitting she spoke to an attendant of OP No.1, Ms. Pooja who told her that it was usual to give a gap in last session. She had hardly felt any improvement in her condition and she expressed the same to Ms. Pooja that she could discuss the same with OP No.2. When she reached at South Extension, OP No.2 was not there. Since she was getting late for a business appointment she expressed the same to the attendant who callously told that it was her choice if she wanted to leave. She was extremely disappointed by the behaviour of OPs and decided to terminate her treatment at OPs clinic. As she was apprehensive that the sheet would be fabricated with false information if she left the same behind so she took the sheet to get the same photocopied but attendants of OP No.1 physically obstructed the path and forcibly snatched the sheet from her. This manhandling and abuse happened in front of other customers at the clinic which was very humiliating for her. She had no choice but to leave the clinic feeling depressed, dejected and utterly humiliated. After such callous behaviour of the attendants of OP No.1, she does not wish to continue her treatment with the OPs. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the OPs, the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OPs to refund the charges of Rs.5000/- paid by the Complainant as the fee of the treatment.
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.1500/- paid by the Complainant for the hormonal tests at the behest of Dr. V. D. S. Malik.
- Direct the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the deficiency of service as well as ill treatment meted out and for the harassment, anxiety and distress caused to the Complainant due to the acts of the OPs.
In the joint written statement OP No.1 & 2 have stated that the OP No.1 is the leading cosmetic surgery and laser centre of the city having an extremely good reputation because of their services which are best available anywhere in the New Delhi and are of international standards. The OP No.2 is a qualified doctor with more than 7 years experience in this field. The Complainant approached the OPs to get laser hair removal. The staff of OP No.1 duly explained the Complainant about the procedure and also explained the positive and negative results. The sittings of the procedure were given to the Complainant. It is denied that the manager of OP No. 1 and another employee attended to the Complainant and assured the Complainant that her problem was only minor and that once the Complainant was treated by the qualified doctors of OP No.1 her problem would be cured in 5 sittings. The treatment is not the same for all the clients and this was advised and counseled by the OPs. This is a basic medical treatment which differs from client to client and depends a lot on the patients hormonal status which they were not aware. Complainant requested the OPs to start with the treatment on the same day and requested to accept the part payment and promised to pay the balance amount on the subsequent sittings. OPs have given sittings of the treatment to the Complainant with her satisfaction. The Complainant had not followed the advice of the OPs and failed to show the hormonal test report to them. The treating doctor should not be held responsible for careless attitude of the Complainant. The reports of the hormonal tests were not shown to the OP No.1. Dr. Rachna Verma, a Gynecologist of Institute of Spinal Injuries has nothing to do with the treatment given by the OPs. OPs have further stated that the Complainant had actually snatched the treatment sheet and the clients session card to get a photocopy which is a confidential document of the clinic and can be obtained by the client after properly giving application and if the management approves it. The OPs informed the Complainant that they are still willing to complete their treatment if she still desires because customer satisfaction is their top priority. Denying deficiency in service on their part, OP No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Jha, Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. No oral arguments have been advanced by the parties. We have gone through the file very carefully.
The complainant had gone for treatment of her superfluous facial hair with the OPs. The complainant has not filed any test report or photograph to show that after getting the first sitting with the OPs she found that there was more hair growth than usual or that the problem increased. In the absence of any documentary proof in this regard we are not inclined to believe the oral version of the complainant more so, when the OPs have denied the fact in toto. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the OPs committed any deficiency in service while giving the treatment to her and she had to leave the medical treatment in the midway due to the behaviour of the OPs.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 22.01.16.
Case No. 682/06
22.1.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K Yadav
