Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/105/2014

Ritesh Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Health Sanctuary - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                         DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM GURGAON-122001

                                                                                              Consumer Complaint No: 105 of 2014                                                                                                                                      Date of Institution: 28.03.2014/03.04.2014                                                                                                                                     Date of Decision:  29.06.2016.

Ritesh Jain s/o Shri Narender Kumar Jain, R/o H.No.174, Kirti Nagar, Gurgaon.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

M/s Health Sanctuary, 8, Bougain Villae  Marg (Opp. Bristol) DLF, Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002 through its Manager.

 

Dr. Shalini, Consultant M/s Health Sanctuary, 8, Bougain Villae Marg (Opp. Bristol), DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002 through its Manager. 

                                                                  

                                                                                                  ..Opposite parties

                                                                                               

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protectio n Act,1986                                                                 

 

BEFORE:     SHRI SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT

SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER

                   SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.

 

Present:        Shri  Ritesh Jain, complainant in person

                    OP No.1 & 2 exparte.

 

ORDER       SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the opposite party gave very alluring and enticing advertisements claiming that they are able to reduce weight loss up to 30-50 cm + 5 kg from tummy. Allured by the said advertisement the complainant got himself enrolled in the programme of reducing fatness by 30 kg as also 10 C. Lipo+ RX+ for tightening of loss skin from abdomen and paid Rs.1,000/- on 12.02.2014, Rs.12500/- on 14.02.2014 against total amount which was settled at Rs.27,500/- and balance of Rs.14,000/- was payable later on after having some positive results. He fully complied with the instructions and guidelines as were told to him. He was assured that he would be having weight loss of 5 kg per month in alternative day and loss of 0.4 to 0.5 inch of width of his waist per week. It was also assured that the procedures would be carried out in a hygienic environment by trained professionals and those procedures would be painless and only simple diet plan with regularly scheduled sessions would be followed. He found during those procedures that there was no weight loss or width of his waist or any visible change in him despite his continuous efforts and discipline being followed by him in all respects. The therapy provided to him was neither effective nor it was provided in a professional manner by untrained persons who were often seen administering the therapy which was found painful and carried out in an unhygienic environment. The complainant continued with the said procedure under the instructions of OP-2 for one month on regular basis but he found no significant change either in his waist or in his waist size despite guarantee provided that the change would be visible in one month’s time by OP-2. Finding no relief the complainant terminated the treatment and asked for refund of his amount of Rs.13500/- including Rs.1000/- but no heed was paid to his repeated requests. Thus, the opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice. The complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund Rs.13,500/- with interest . He also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

2                 Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. However, opposite parties failed to turn up despite service and thus, were proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.04.2014.

3                 The complainants have produced copy of two pamphlets, payment receipt dated 12.02.2014 and 14.02.2014 and prescription slip dated 14.02.2014 and application for refund of the amount.

4                 We have heard the complainant and have perused the record available on file.

 

5                 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that the complainant obtained the treatment from the OPs and paid a total sum of Rs.13,500/- against the total package of Rs.27,500/-. From the receipt dated 12.02.2014 it emerges that in 6 to 9 months there was to be  loss of 30 kg and 4 inches tummy reduction. The complainant has paid a sum of Rs.12,500/- on 14.02.2014 in which loss of wt. has been mentioned as 30 kg + 10 C. Lipo. The complainant was also advised to take diet as per the specifications given by the doctor. On 14.02.2014 the complainant was having weight 113.5 kg and the complainant was asked to go through the procedure mentioned in the letter dated 14.02.2014.

 

6                 The complainant has alleged that there was no reduction in the weight loss and no reduction in his waist. However, there is nothing on the file as to what was the size of the waist of the complainant on the date of alleged start of the procedure. There is nothing on the file as to whether the complainant has attended all the sessions as mentioned in the prescription slip dated 14.02.2014.There is nothing on the file as to whether the complainant took the diet as mentioned in the prescription slip.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant started taking treatment w.e.f. 14.02.2014 and has filed the present complaint on 28.03.2014 i.e. approximately within 1 ½ month of the taking of the treatment despite the fact that as per prescription slip dated 12.02.2014 it emerges that the validity period was 6 to 9 months and the complainant was required to take the said therapy for 6 to 9 months but the complainant has filed the present complaint after about 1 ½ months after starting the treatment. Therefore, the complainant has not gone through the procedure prescribed in the letter dated 14.02.2014. The complainant has placed on record newspaper item  in which this Forum has allowed a complaint filed by a consumer regarding reduction of weight loss which is no help to the complainant because in the instant case the complainant failed to prove that he has adhered to the prescription slip as mentioned therein. Moreover, the complainant has failed to mention his weight on the date of filing of the present complaint and as such in absence of any cogent evidence on record no deficiency in service can be said to have been accrued against the opposite party. Thus, the complaint has no merit and fails and it is hereby dismissed. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

Announced                                                                                                  (Subhash Goyal)

29.06.2016                                                                                                      President,

                                                                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                        Redressal Forum, Gurgaon

 

(Jyoti Siwach)        (Surender Singh Balyan)

Member                 Member