COMPLAINT FILED: 27-08-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 31-12-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 31TH DECEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2071/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.H.Raghuram,<br /> No.1053, 28th Main Road,<br /> 36th Cross, 4th T Block,<br /> Jayanagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 011.<br /> <br /> Party in Person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Alankar, Slimming & <br /> Cometics Clinic Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> M/s.VIBES,<br /> Southend Road,<br /> Basavanagudi,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER <br /> <br /> This complaint is filed u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to refund the amount of Rs.6,000/- with compensation of Rs.500/- on an allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> The brief averments made in the complainant are as follows:<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant is aged about 69 years. He is a retired Assistant Commissioner and having good health but he was over weight. He lured away with the advertisement given by the OP in the daily news papers, approached the OP to avail doby therapy super trimmer programme (Package U.T (Full body) get reduce his weight by 5 kgs and 5 inches waist loss. The complainant was asked to remit the prescribed fee of Rs.11,798/-. Accordingly complainant paid part payment of Rs.6000/- by way of cheque dated 17-12-2008 drawn on syndicate Bank, Thilaknagar Branch, Jayanagar Branch, Bangalore. The cash memo dated 17-12-2008 issued by OP is produced. Firstly complainant was asked to undergo stimulation treatment for few days. There was no improvement in weight reduction, complainant was given powder massage treatment. For powder massage treatment complainant developed allergy and rashes with itching problems moreover during the course of treatment they use to hit the stomach of the complainant, which the complainant could not withstand due to his oldage. Hence complainant stopped taking treatments as there was no improvement in weight reduction and sought return of amount of Rs.6000/- paid to the OP vide his letter dated 20-07-2009. Inspite of receipt of the letter there was no response from OP. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he was advised to file this complaint for necessary reliefs.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that complainant has not been assured to weight loss of 5 Kgs or 5 inch loss as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has been offered 7 sessions of body therapies super trimmer as against the payment made by the complainant. Complainant has availed 4 sittings and copy of the treatment record signed by the complainant is produced. The complainant has paid half of the amount for which services are availed by him. Moreover complainant has not been regular for his session during his regular session. Inspite of his irregularity complainant has lost 2.4Kgs weight in just 3 sessions. Since complainant failed to make the full payment, after 4th sitting sessions has to be discontinued. Complainant never mentioned about the allergy which he alleged to have developed because of the treatment, to the vibes staff. The complainant has agreed and signed to the terms and conditions of the treatment. When balance payment was asked complainant has filed this false complaint and prayed for the dismiss of the complaint<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has availed the body therapy super trimmer package U.T. (full body) from the OP. So as to get reduce his body weight by 5 Kgs and 5 inches waist loss. Further it is also not in dispute that with regard to the same complainant out of the prescribed fees of Rs.11.798/- has paid part payment of Rs.6,000/- to OP by way of cheque dated 17-12-2008 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Thilaknagar Branch, Bangalore. Complainant attended 4 sessions i.e., on 17-12-2008, 07-01-2009, 08-01-2009 and on 20-01-2009 and sittings offered by the OP for the said body therapies are seven. The grievence of the complainant is inspite of attending the programme weight remained same. Hence complainant felt deficiency in services on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 7. It is not the case of the complainant that he has attended are the 7 sessions offered but failed to get reduction in weight. Complainant himself a contributed his negligence in not achieving the result. It is contended by the OP that the allegation of allergy or rashes was not brought to the knowledge of the staff of the OP. It seems there is same force in this contention. No material is produced by the complainant in support of his contention that he developed allergy to the treatment. <br /> <br /> 8. We have perused the terms and conditions produced by OP. The condition No.2 clearly states that <br /> a) Minimum 8 session for females and 10 sessions for males are required per month for weight loss/support therapy to achieve best results. <br /> b) First session shall be taken within 7 days/10 days from the date of booking depending upon the nature of package booked.<br /> c) The counselors will prescribe definite schedule and plan for each package relevant to individual client’s requirements and the clients are required to follow such advices rigidly failing which the management cannot be held responsible for lack of achievement of intended results. <br /> d) The management will not refund any amount against booking and/or its services whether availed in full or not by the client during the validity of the programme. Payments received by the company against the services shall be deemed to have been utilized in full in discharge of the company obligation. Etc., <br /> <br /> 9. The complainant after knowing fully the terms and conditions has signed the same on 17-12-2008. It is contended by the complainant that he felt no improvement in weight reduction his weight remained more or less the same hence he stopped attending the therapy programme. When complainant himself failed to attend the classes regularly, OP is not responsible for the result. Result of such programmes may vary from person to person depending upon composition of individual body, health status, metabolism and other factor like diet and lifestyle. As per the therapy treatment record produced by OP inspite of irregularity in attending the sittings complainant has lost 2.4 Kgs weight just in 3 sessions.<br /> <br /> 10. When OP sought for balance payment, complainant to avoid further payment has filed this complaint against the OP. Complainant himself is a defaulter. Hence he is not entitled for any reliefs. Complaint is devoid of merits. We hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complainant is not entitled for any relief sought. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of December 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />