Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/39

Tarlochan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Health sanctuary - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Mayank Malhotra

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/39 of 12.2.2015

                                      Decided on:        12.6.2015

 

Tarlochan Singh S/o Sh.Jagat Singh aged about 68 years, resident of House No.9/3, Gobind Nagar, Patiala 98153-77774

         

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Health Sanctuary, SCO No.143-44,Sector 80-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Partner

 

                                                                   …………….Op

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

                                     

                                                                            

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Mayank Malhotra, Advocate

For Op       :                  Exparte.    

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he is aged 68 years. In the month of July,2014, the complainant after having gone through the advertisement given by the Op, visited the office of the Op at Chandigarh. The Op deals in the weight management, C-LIPO, Mesotherapy, Ultralypolisis,  etc. On enquiry about the weight loss / management, the Op assured the complainant that he would make the complainant loose 10Kgms of weight in three months and 4 ½" to 5 ½"  loss in the waist area. At that time, complainant was having a weight of 84Kgms and the size of his waist was  43 inches.
2. He was asked by the Op to visit the Op at Chandigarh once in a week but lateron the visit was changed to a fortnight i.e. 15 days. The complainant was given 10 injections in his stomach, in a span of three months. The complainant also followed the diet chart strictly and rigorously  as advised by the consultants of the Op. The complainant was charged Rs.50,000/- by the Op vide receipts No.1205 and 1206 dated 29.7.2014 and 30.7.2014.The complainant visited the Op for about 15 times and attended the sessions held by the Op. He also took the diet as per the advice of the Op but till the date of the filing of the complaint, he had not lost his weight and decrease in the size of his waist as assured by the Op.
3. It is averred that the complainant was falsely allured by the Op, in order to obtain money from the complainant illegally and the same amounts to an unfair trade practice on the part of the Op. The complainant got the Op served with a legal notice on 14.10.2014 through his counsel but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant has  brought this complaint against the Op under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Op to refund  Rs.50,000/- ,received from him; to pay him Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation on account of the harassment and humiliation suffered by him and further to award him the costs of the complaint.
4. The Op despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
5. In the exparte evidence, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C6 and his counsel closed the evidence.
6. The complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
7. Ex.C2, is the photo copy of the receipt No.1205 dated 29.7.2014 issued by the Op regarding the payment of Rs.5000/-against the total package of Rs.50,000/-, in favor of the complainant. On the receipt, a note is given in hand “10 Meso+6+6 Rf +10Kg weight loss 4 ½ to 5 ½ inch”. Ex.C3 is the photo copy of the other receipt No.1206 dated 30.7.2014 regarding the payment of Rs.45000/- issued by the Op. On the receipt, it is recorded, it is a cash deposit. Again a note is given in hand “10 Meso 6+6 Rf+10Kg weight loss”.
8. Ex.C4, is the copy of the statement of account of ICICI Bank Limited, in respect of a/c No.016201554302 of the complainant  Tarlochan Singh, showing debit of Rs.45000/- on 30.7.2014 and the same to have been  transferred to S H Health i.e. the Op. Thus, the complainant has shown that the part payment was made by the complainant in the account of the Op through his account maintained at Patiala.
9. Now , coming to the merits of the complaint, except the note made in hand on the receipt Ex.C2 that there will be a loss of 10 kg weight 4 ½ to 5 ½ inch loss in waist, although the same has not been qualified with reference to the waist, the complainant has not produced any literature/prospectus, to have been provided by the Op to the complainant showing the procedure to be adopted by the Op in the matter of reducing the weight in the body of the complainant qua the loss in the waist. It is simply alleged by the complainant that he was given10 injections in his stomach. in a span of three months and that  he has strictly and rigorously followed the diet chart as advised by the consultants of the Op. The complainant has not produced any record to have been maintained by the Op, in the matter of imparting the injections to him or the diet chart prescribed by the Op. It was for the complainant to have disclosed the name of the injections imparted to him and then to have lead the evidence as to whether these injections could cause any loss in the weight of his body. The complainant should have disclosed, as to what was the diet chart. The complainant had started getting his treatment from the Op in the month of July,2014 and the same would have lasted up to first week of October,2014 because he got the Op served with the legal notice dated 14.10.2014 (copy Ex.C5) about the unfair trade practice on the part of the Op. After all the Op would have prepared one or the other chart, to record the progress in the matter of the complainant loosing the weight  in his body and loosing the size  of his waist but no such record is produced by the complainant. The complainant has simply alleged in the complaint that at the time of starting the treatment, the weight of his body was 85 kgms and the size of his waist was 43inches.Nothing is disclosed as to  what was the weight of his body when he had completed the treatment and as to what was the size of his waist. The complainant having taken the treatment from the Op upto the 1^st week of October,2014, he brought this complaint on 12.2.2015 i.e. after a lapse about four months.  Nothing is explained by the complainant as to what was the diet taken by him during the said period i.e. from 2^nd week of October,2014 to the date of the filing of the complaint i.e. 12.2.2015.Similarly, he has not disclosed as to what was his weight at the time of the filing of the complaint and what was the size of his waist.
10. Unless and until, it is disclosed by the complainant as to what was the diet plan prescribed by the Op and as to whether he had followed the same strictly, he could not blame  the Op. It appears that the Op assured the complainant to loose his weight as also the size of his waist purely depending upon the diet to be taken by him but no chart of the diet, prescribed by the Op has been produced. May that as it be, the complainant has not produced any document on the basis of which the Op had claimed the guarantee in the matter of reducing the weight in the body of the complainant qua the size of his waist. It is a matter of common knowledge and experience that the institutions like the Op provide a sufficient literature to its customers to know about the scheme qua the procedure to be followed but no such record is produced by the complainant.
11. It was not difficult for the complainant to have disclosed in the complaint that at the time, he started taking the treatment from the Op, the weight of his body was 84 kgms and the size of his waist was 43 inch. He should have produced  some  authentic  record to have been maintained by the Op in this regard. He further should have produced some evidence to show as to what was his weight at the time of his having completed the course and what was the position of his weight at the time of filing of the complaint, in the absence of which, we find that the complaint is based merely on assumption that complainant has not lost his weight as also size of his waist. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint so as to say that there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the Op.The fact of the matter is that the complainant had availed of the services of the Op but he has not been able to point out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and accordingly the complaint is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced

Dated: 12.6.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President