Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/87/2020

Sarbjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Clinic Dermatech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar

03 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/87/2020
Date of Institution	:	17/02/2020
Date of Decision	:	03/09/2021

 

Sarbjit Singh son of Sh. Ravinder Singh, aged about 44 years, r/o House No.1034, Sector 44-B, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Clinic Dermatech Private Limited, SCO No.145-146, Above Grover Eye Clinic, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant
	:	OP ex-parte.

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.     Allegations in brief are, with a view to control his weight, the complainant approached the OP.  The OP allured the complainant that in case he availed its services, his weight will be reduced within two months and assured that its fat reducing package guaranteed loss of weight and reduction of weight of 10 kgs. within two months. On such assurances of the OP, complainant availed its services in January 2018, but, even after attending approximately 14 sessions, he did not get the result. OP further directed the complainant to avail 14 more sessions upon which he paid ₹10,000/- to the OP on 25.2.2018 (wrongly mentioned as 25.2.2019). However, due to health problems having been operated for brain tumor, complainant could not avail services of the OP. After recovering, complainant requested the OP to refund the amount, but, it failed to do so. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     Notice sent to the OP through dasti was refused by it.  Since refusal is valid service and none appeared on behalf of the OP, therefore, vide order dated 1.7.2021, it was proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
5.     The case of the complainant is that on the assurances of the OP, he availed its services in January 2018 and attended approximately 14 sessions for fat reduction, but, did not get the result.  Thereafter, on the asking of the OP to avail 14 more sessions, the complainant agreed and deposited ₹10,000/- with it. In this regard Annexure C-1 is the copy of tax invoice vide which the complainant availed the services of the OP and paid ₹10,000/-. However, as the complainant was operated for brain tumor and remained on bed rest for approximately one year, he could not avail the services of the OP.  Annexure C-2 is the copy of the PGI record as per which the complainant was admitted on 15.3.2018 and was discharged on 18.3.2018 after performance of surgery.  Discharge Summary of the Department of Neurosurgery, PGIMER, Chandigarh is at Page 12. As per the complainant, due to this reason he could not attend any session of the OP. After recovering the complainant approached the OP for refund, but, it lingered the matter and failed to do so. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the complainant that as the OP did not provide any services, therefore, it cannot be allowed to usurp the amount deposited by him and non refund of the same amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 
6.     In order to rebut the allegations of the complainant, it was essential for the OP to file its written reply alongwith some cogent evidence.  However, what to talk of rebutting the allegations, OP even refused to take notice of the consumer complaint sent by this Commission and chose to be proceeded against ex-parte. This act of the OP draws an adverse inference against it and proves that the OP has nothing to say in its defence qua the allegations made by the complainant. Hence, in the absence of anything to the contrary, the allegations of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. Since no services were provided by the OP it was highly unethical on the part of the OP not to return the amount of the complainant despite requests.
7.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant.
2. to pay an amount of ₹3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹2,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
9.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/09/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President