IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 34/09 DATED 03.04.2009<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Mrs. Regina, No.322, “Beethal”, 11th Cross, ‘A’ Block, Vijaya Nagar, 3rd Stage, Mysore-17.<br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Director, M/s VLSS Health Care ltd., Shree Ganesh Arcade, 10th Cross, V.V.Puram, Kalidasa Road, Mysore-2.<br /> (By Sri.L.Santhosh., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.01.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 19.02.2009<br /> Date of order : 03.04.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 ½ MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint against the opposite party is, that she was lured by the advertisement of the opposite party who offered to reduce her weight within a short period by rendering satisfactory service and she believing it paid Rs.16,854/-. The weight reducing service was supposed to for a fixed period with a package assigned to her with equipments for her use. That the opposite party also made her to purchase certain products worth Rs.924/- to enhance the effectiveness of the programme, but to her dismay when the session went on, on 06.01.2008 it became a nightmare as she was left with a sever burn on her stomach after using a tummy tuck given to her. Then she reported this to opposite party’s doctor namely Dr.Ajitha who in turn consulted the opposite party’s consultants who expressed their shock and surprise about the burn injuries she suffered and she was told by Miss. Usha to apply Silverex ointment and to take some tables. But her anguish did not subside, as the result of these injuries she suffered untold mental agony, she narrated this to the opposite party and told them to take back 6 tucks left unused with her, but the opposite party did not respond. Even her letter dated 27.03.2008 addressed to the opposite party was also not replied. Then she gave a representation to a voluntary organization who also issued a notice to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not care, therefore stating that she was put to sufferings by the act of the opposite party has prayed for a direction to opposite party to refund her fee and award compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party has entered appearance through his advocate and filed version, admitting, running an Institution of Slimming and Beauty Fitness since several years. The opposite party has denied that in the session that the complainant took on 06.01.2008 she suffered burn injuries and stated that allegations of the complainant are all false. The opposite party ahs also denied in causing any injuries to the complainant in the weight reduction programme. The opposite party has admitted in the complainant having had met their doctor Ajitha on 10.01.2008 complaining of some blisters on her stomach and at that time, the doctor had advised the complainant to apply Silverex ointment, which was supplied by them. It is further stated by them that their doctor had advised the complainant to go to Vikram Hospital, Mysore for consultation for any other problem, but the complainant did not turn up, therefore, stated that they have not caused any deficiency. The opposite party further contended that at the time of admission to the programme, the complainant was told that the amount paid by her towards programme is not refundable and denying that the complainant did not loose weight has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced a copy of the advertisement issued by the opposite party, copy of the bills for having paid fee to the opposite party and certificate of a doctor with copies of some correspondences that she made with the opposite party. The opposite party has produced client programme record maintained by it in the course of weight reducing process. Heard the complainant who is in person who has also filed her written argument, heard the counsel for the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that in the course of weight reducing process offered by the opposite party she suffered burn injuries on her abdomen and that is because of the deficiency in the service of the opposite party? <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The claim of the complainant that she was influenced by the advertisement of the opposite party joined weight reducing programme offered by the opposite party on payment of Rs.16,854/- and Rs.924/- towards supply of certain products is not in dispute as the opposite party has no where denied the said fact. Therefore the fact remains that the complainant availed service of the opposite party for reduction of her weight on payment.<br /> <br /> 7. It is the case of the complainant that on 06.01.2008 in the course of the programme she suffered sever burn on her stomach after using tummy tuck given to her by the opposite party and she in order to substantiate the same has produced Xerox copies of certain photographs of her burnt portion of the abdomen and a C.D. Whereas the opposite party has denied these allegations in toto and thereby have also denied any deficiency in his service. The learned counsel representing the opposite party in the course of arguments invited our attention to client programme record maintained by the opposite party in respect of this complainant and shown that the complainant had attended in all 15 programmes and that the opposite party never had any programme on 06.01.2008 and he specifically pointed out that the opposite party gave programme to the complainant on 05.01.2008 and again on 07.01.2008 and there was no programme at all on 06.01.2008 as contended by the complainant and submitted the claim of the complainant that she suffered injury in the course of programme on 06.01.2008 cannot be believed and thereby snubbed the claim of the complainant as entire falsehood. But, on careful analysis of the grievance of the complainant and the defense of the opposite party, the grievance of the complainant that she suffered abdominal burn injuries on using tummy tuck issued by the opposite party in the course of the treatment is not at all denied by the opposite party. On the contrary, the opposite party in para 5 of his version and para in 6 of his affidavit evidence has admitted that on 10.01.2008, the complainant had been to their Institution met a doctor Ajitha and told that she had blisters on her stomach and she consulted her family doctor who had advised her to take antibiotics and anti-inflammatory drugs and further admitted that their doctor advised the complainant to take Silverex ointment which was supplied from their store. The opposite party in para 7 of the affidavit evidence admitted that on 12.01.2008 their doctor had advised the complainant to go and consult in Vikram Hospital, Mysore free of cost, for any other problem, but the complainant did not go. With this, it is manifest that though the complainant did not attend the programme on 06.01.2008, but the fact that she had suffered some external abdominal injuries in the course of programme, then she met Dr.Ajitha, a doctor of opposite party who advised application of Silverex ointment and advised the complainant to go and consult in Vikram Hospital, Mysore is sufficient enough to prove that the complainant suffered burn injuries because of the treatment of the opposite party in their attempt reduce the weight of the complainant. Further, in the client programme record maintained by the opposite party and produced before this Forum, we find an entry on 10.01.2008 recording presence of blisters around the umbilicus of the complainant and he was advised a course of antibiotics and on 12.01.2008 the complainant again consulted the doctor of the opposite party who advised her to go to Vikram Hospital for consultation. The admissions of the opposite party made in version, affidavit evidence and recording found in the medical history follow up card, which is a part of client programme record prove that the complainant had suffered injuries on her abdomen around the umbilicus and she was advised treatment and application of some ointment. With this, the agony of the complainant that she suffered at the hands of the opposite party by suffering certain burn injuries out of the treatment advised by the opposite party stands established, when in our view unerringly points to the unscientific method adopted by the opposite party in their attempt to reduce the weight of the complainant, which nothing sort of deficiency in their service.<br /> <br /> 8. The counsel appearing for the opposite party invited our attention to certain conditions incorporated in the programme record and stated that there is a condition that the fee once paid by the clients to the opposite party is not refundable. No doubt, this condition or declaration had been shown to the complainant and she has signed below that, but that does not in my view could debar the complainant who suffered in the hands of the opposite party at a few sittings from complaining and claiming refund of money she had paid. Because, even assuming that there is a condition of non-refund of the programme fee, if any programme offered to the client found not feasible, not acceptable or injurious to them, then even in that situation the opposite party cannot compel such a client to undergo further sufferings. In such an event, the client or complainant in our view is at liberty to apply for refund of the programme fee. In the case on hand, we are finding such a situation wherein the complainant who suffered injuries as evident from the photographs and the C.D. over her abdomen had no option but to ask for refund of money. The complainant, however it is found had attended 15 programmes of the opposite party and was supplied even with certain kits and other items, which is by incurring certain expenditure by the opposite party. We therefore propose to deduct a sum of Rs.3,854/- from out of the amount paid by the complainant and direct the opposite party to refund the balance of Rs.;13,000/- to the complainant. With this, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.13,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on that amount from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. The complainant shall return all the unused items supplied by opposite party <br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 3rd April 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />