Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/13/2018

B.Ashok kumar, S/o Krishnama Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Michael Richards S.A., Slimming Manager - Opp.Party(s)

S.Naveen Kumar

12 Dec 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date: 16-02-2018                                                                                                               Order Date: 12-12-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                        Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

 WEDNESDAY THE TWELTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.13/2018

 

Between

B. Ashok Kumar, S/o. Krishnama Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 40 years, residing at

Gummadivari Indlu Village, Pedda Gorpadu Post,

Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District.                                                      ...Complainant

 

And

Michael Richards, S.A., Slimming Manager,

KOLORS HEALTH CARE INDIA (PVT)LTD.,

H.No. 25, K.R. Pride, 3^rd Floor, K.T.Road,

Beside Andhra Bank, Tirupati.                                                         …Opposite party

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 23.11.2018 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.S. Naveen Kumar, counsel for the complainant, and Sri. K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards weight reduction treatment of Rs.25,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

        2. The brief facts of the case are: the complainant who is fatty intended to decrease his weight and impressed by the wide publicity given by the opposite party in television, newspapers and pamphlets, he approached the opposite party centre for the weight loss treatment and paid Rs.10,000/- on 14.04.2017 as advance. Again he paid Rs.15,000/- on 06.05.2017 and in total he paid Rs.25,000/- towards fee for weight reduction treatment to the opposite party.

        The complainant further submits that while joining in the opposite party centre, they have assured him that he will lose weight within a short period. Accordingly the complainant has taken treatment for three sittings. While in the course of treatment, the complainant experienced severe head ache and it happened because of the forcible strain on the body to remove fat with the assistance of unqualified persons of the opposite party. Hence he consulted the doctor and the doctor advised him to stop the treatment because of side effects. Hence he withdrew to take the treatment and did not attend weight loss sessions in the opposite party centre and demanded to repay the amount which was paid by him for the treatment. But the opposite party gave evasive answers and finally on 06.10.2017 the complainant approached the opposite party and gave a letter by requesting the opposite party to refund the amount paid by him as he has not attended even three sittings. But the opposite party failed to pay the same. Hence the complainant issued legal notice on 30.10.2017 calling upon the opposite party to repay the amount. But after receipt of the legal notice, the opposite party sent reply notice on 10.11.2017 through his advocate with false allegations. Hence non-refunding of fee paid by him towards weight reduction programme, amounts to deficiency in service. Hence he filed the present complaint. 

         3. Opposite party who is working as a slimming manager in the office of the opposite party filed the written version on behalf of the opposite party company by denying the averments and allegations made in the complaint and further submitted that the complainant joined for weight reduction treatment in their Tirupati branch on 14.04.2017 and agreed to pay prescribed fee for total number of sittings as per  the terms and conditions and signed by him in the declaration form at  the time of joining. Normally before joining the treatment, the counselor of the centre will explain and counsel the client about bad consequences and repercussions about the treatment along with above said formalities and asked to fill the record book, if the client had underwent/undergone any medical problems and as there is positive reply of the complainant to take treatment the opposite party agreed to give the treatment for which the complainant has agreed. The opposite party further contended that they have no knowledge of the alleged side effects faced by the complainant and he did not even informed the same to them. Hence in order to get wrongful gain, he created the said allegation for the purpose of filing this complaint.

        The opposite party further contended that they have clearly explained the terms and conditions for the packages opted by the complainant and he accepted the same. After completion of three sittings, the complainant stopped from attending the sessions and within six months period thereafter all of sudden he filed the present complaint. The complainant has shown interest at the time of counseling and expressed his willingness towards the treatment, but now he is showing unwillingness for the continuation of treatment without any valid reasons. The opposite party further submits that even now they are always ready to provide their services and treatment as agreed in the package. Hence the complainant is at liberty to take the services of the opposite party until package gets completed. Hence there is no deficiency in service on part of them as alleged by the complainant because he himself willfully and wantonly decided not to take services from them.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the complainant.

        4. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex: A1 to A4. On behalf of the Opposite party Mr. K. Jagadish Kumar, S/o.K. Ramu, Operation Manager at Tirupati branch filed his evidence on affidavit Ex:B1 was marked. Both the parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

         5. Now the point for consideration is:-

           Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party towards the complainant.  If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

                    6.Point:-   The case of the complainant is as he is a business man and burly personality, intended to reduce the weight and having been impressed by the wide publicity given by the opposite party in television, newspapers and pamphlets of the opposite party, approached the opposite party centre in Tirupati for joining weight reduction program and  paid Rs.25.000/- through debit card under Ex.A1. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the opposite party agreed for 40 sittings at the rate of two sittings in a week and also promised if the weight was not reduced in stipulated period, they will refund the amount paid by the complainant. The counsel for the complainant further argued that the complainant attended three sittings only, and thereafter he experienced severe headache during sitting as unqualified persons attended on him. Hence he consulted the doctor and he advised him to stop taking weight reduction treatment, due to side effects caused by forcible stream. Hence in view of the above circumstances he discontinued the treatment and requested the opposite parties to refund the amount paid by him and submitted letter on 06.10.2017 under Ex.A2. But the opposite party failed to pay the same.  Hence he caused the legal notice on 30.10.2017 under Ex A3.  But after receipt of the legal notice they sent reply notice under Ex A4 with all false allegations and failed to refund the fee paid by the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service.

                     The counsel for the opposite party argued that the complainant joined their centre on 14.04.2017 by agreeing to pay prescribed fee for total number of sittings and also further agreed to the conditions of the opposite party and voluntarily joined and signed in the declaration form. The counsel for the opposite party further argued that at the time of joining, they have explained the consequences and repercussions of the treatment and he himself filled the record book and he has not mentioned about any medical problems in the record book. The opposite party have clearly explained the terms and conditions for the treatment opted by the complainant and agreed and accepted for the same.  After the completion of the three sittings, the complainant stopped attending the sittings. After six months all of sudden he filed this complaint.  The counsel for the opposite party stated that they are always ready to provide their services and treatment as agreed in the package and further stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint with all false and baseless allegations against the opposite party. They have given the treatment in accordance with the terms and conditions as agreed by the complainant in Ex.B1. Hence the complaint is not sustainable on law and facts of the case and liable to be dismissed.

                     7. After perusing the record filed by both the parties, there is no dispute regarding the payment of fee by the complainant to the opposite party under Ex.A1 and same was admitted by the opposite party. The main case of the complainant is that he suffered side effects such as severe headache in the course of treatment in the opposite party centre as the treatment was given by unqualified persons. Hence the doctor advised him to stop taking weight reduction treatment. But the complainant has not filed any advice given by the doctor and also he has not filed any affidavit of the doctor to prove his contention. Except the oral allegations, he has not filed any documentary proof to show that the opposite party has hired unqualified persons to attend the complainant for treatment. The complainant stated that he was impressed by vide publicity given by the opposite party. But he has not filed any news paper or any pamphlet to prove his contention.

        Hence in the absence of any corroborative evidence, we cannot hold any deficiency in service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant because even now they are ready to allow the complainant to complete the remaining sittings in their centre. Hence in view of the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case with documentary proof.  Hence the complaint is liable dismissed.

        In the result, complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 12^th day of December, 2018.

              Sd/-                                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                       

    Lady Member                                                                                                 President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: B. Ashok Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Mr. K. Jagadish Kumar (Chief/ Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Payments (Transaction Slips 2 in Number 1. Rs.10,000, Dt: 14.04.2017, 2. Rs.15,000/- Dt: 06.05.2017) made by the complainant to the opposite party for Total Rs.25,000/-.
	Office copy of requisition given by the complainant to the opposite party. Dt: 06.10.2017.
	Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Dt: 30.10.2017.
	Served copy of Reply Notice from the Opposite Party. Dt: 10.11.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Slimming Record Book bearing P.D.No.812, Dt: 06.05.2017.

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                   President (FAC)

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite party.