Delhi

East Delhi

CC/277/2015

MILAN GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER GENSIS WELLNESS CLINIC - Opp.Party(s)

08 Dec 2016

ORDER

                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        277/2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution      -       28/04/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on              08/12/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order         -           09/12/2016  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Ms Milan Gupta, adult

R/o 12/15 3^rd Floor

West Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008………………………………..……….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

1-The Manager

Genesis Wellness Clinic Pvt Ltd

120, Hargobind Enclave, Nr Karkarduma Metro Stn.

Delhi 110092

 

2- The Managing Director

Genesis Wellness Clinic Pvt Ltd

3A/50, 3^rd Floor, WEA

Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110055……………………….……..…………………….Respondents

 

Complainant                                                 In Person  

Opponent                                                      Ex Parte 

 

Quorum                                                         Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                        Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                   

                                                                        Mrs Harpreet Kaur    Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant wanted to reduce her body weight quickly, so approached OP1 who offers slimming, weight loss and laser hair reduction services. She agreed for a package consist of Cryo sitting, tummy tuck, back bulge cavitations’ RF technology for breast and weight loss up to 10 kg. Complainant paid entire amount of sum Rs 50,000/- to OP1 on dated 10/05/2014 vide quotation no. 163, marked here as Annexure I.

When she did not get any improvement even after 8 months of sittings, she asked to change the package of same amount, but OP1 refused to change the accepted package. OP1 offered another package of very less amount of about Rs 10,000/-which was not acceptable to complainant, so a letter was sent to both OPs through courier marked here Annexure II & III.   

When she did not get any reply, filed this complaint claiming Rs 50,000/- paid for deficiency of services and unfair trade practice with compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by complainant. 

Notices were sent, but OPs failed to put their appearance nor submitted written statement and evidences. After getting postal department report that the notices were delivered, hence case was proceeded Ex Parte. Complainant filed her Ex Parte evidences on affidavit which were on record.

Arguments were heard and order was reserved.  

After perusal of all the facts and evidences on record in this complaint, it has been noticed that complainant had taken one package for her weight loss from OP and after taking maximum sittings, did not get any improvement. Offer was also given by complainant to change the package of same amount, but OP1 neither changed the package nor refunded the money received by them.  This amounts to deficiency in the service of OP.

Also it was noticed that OP1 had issued a quotation note and not cash bill / receipt vide Annexure I which itself is a unfair trade practice on the part of OP1, though complainant had not noticed this fact as innocent consumers are not aware of various unfair trade practices are being done by many service providers to mint money for their own benefit.  

As the amount paid by the complainant to OP1 and OP2 is also a part of this business rather a managing partner, this means that maximum amount had been utilized by OP2 also. Failure to reply the notice sent by complainant proves unfair trade practice.  

So, we come to the conclusion that complainant has succeeded in proving OPs services deficient and unfair trade practice.  We have to stop such illegal activities under Consumer Protection Act for such service providers, so that innocent consumers should not be cheated.   

Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint be allowed and pass the following order as under…

 

1. OP is directed to refund the amount Rs 50,000/-within 30 days from the receiving of this order with 9% interest from the date of date of institution of this complaint till realization.
2. No other award in ref to compensation and litigation.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

Mrs  Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                         (Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                     

 

                                       

                                               Shri Sukhdev Singh  President