Delhi

East Delhi

CC/452/2017

NIRANJAN THAKUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HEALTH SANCTUARY - Opp.Party(s)

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 452/2017

 

	Niranjan Thakur D/o Late Shri Thakur Raghunandan Singh WA-14 Shakarpur, Delhi 110092	….Complainant
Versus
	M/s. Health Sanctuary Clinic Through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory Ms. Shubhi Hussain 100, New Rajdhani Enclave, (Opposite Preet Vihar) Delhi 110092	……OP
	Also at : 8, Shanti Vihar, Karkardooma, Anand Vihar, Delhi 110092
	Also at : B-1 Market, Near City Centre Mall, Sector-50, NOIDA, U.P.

 

 

Date of Institution: 31.10.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 14.03.2022

Judgment Passed on: 27.04.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the Complainant against OP w.r.t. deficiency of service by not providing proper services despite have made full payment by complainant for the laser treatment.
2. Brief facts as stated by the Complainant in nutshell are that on 6.6.2015 the complainant had enrolled herself for the laser treatment from OP for which complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to OP for 9 sittings i.e. 1 sitting per month. Complainant further stated that she had taken only four sittings and then she came to know that OP had closed its clinic. Thereafter on contacting OP by the complainant, OP assured to open its clinic very soon but the same did not happen. Complainant further stated that after about one year, complainant come to know that the OP has opened its clinic at new address i.e. 8, Shanti Vihar, Karkardooma, Anand Vihar, Delhi. On visiting at new place of clinic, the complainant was told that if she wants to take rest of the sittings for completing the treatment, she would have to deposit Rs.25,000/- again as the OP has now installed new machines and further treatment would be given on new machines. The complainant had further deposited Rs.25,000/- on 2.9.2016 for nine sittings. But this time too, just after one sitting, OP closed its clinic once again. On contacting the OP by complainant it was told to complainant that rest of the treatment can be taken from its new address at Sector-50 NOIDA. When complainant reached there, the OP started treatment with old machine and when complainant took objection to it, she was threatened and told that if she wants to take treatment there, she would have to take the treatment only on those old machines. Therefore, the complainant contacted the owner of the OP for refund but of no avail. Complainant then lodged written complaint to police station, Preet Vihar on 26.6.2017 but no action has been taken against OP by Police till today. With no option left, the complainant filed the present complaint with the prayer to this Commission to issue directions to OP for refunding of Rs.50,000/- with all the vested benefits, pay Rs.7,00,000/- as mental torture, agony and harassment and disturbance and towards loss of business and inconvenience faced by complainant, pay Rs.1,00,000/- as conveyance charges etc. & Rs.1,00,000/- for litigation and other charges. Complainant has annexed copies of receipts of payment serial no. 2280, 2283, 2580, 2585 & 2590 dated 4.6.2015, 6.6.2015, 2.9.2016, 11.9.2016 & 20.9.2016 respectively & copy of complaint made to police dated 26.6.2017.
3. Notice was issued to OP. On 1.8.2019 AR of the OP received copy of complaint but despite provided many opportunities written statement not filed by the OP. Therefore, the OP was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 19.12.2019.
4. Complainant has filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit wherein all the contents of complaint has been reiterated.
5. After perusal of all the documents on record, this Commission is of the opinion that OP being ex parte and in absence of any defence the complainant’s  version has gone unrebutted and she has proved contention raised in of the complaint with reference of payment made by her to the OP and the OP despite having received the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from complainant did not provide proper laser treatment to the complainant as agreed and we, therefore, hold  the OP liable for gross deficiency in service and direct OP :

1. to refund Rs.50000/-  to the Complainant
2. to pay to an amount of Rs.7500/- as compensation on account pain and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
3. to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as legal expenses.

 

6. Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.
7. File be consigned to Record Room.
8. Announced on 27.4.2022

 

DELHI

 

 

 

(On leave) (Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President