DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

(1)  Ashish Sharma s/o Sh. Harinder Kumar, R/o #911-C, Himshikha Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula.

(2)  Yogita Sharma w/o Sh. Ashish Sharma, R/o #911-C, Himshikha Colony, Pinjore, District Panchkula.

---Complainants

Vs.

M/s VLCC Healthcare Ltd., SCO No. 43, Pocket No.1, Manimajra,U.T.Chandigarh, through its Manager/ Director/ Incharge.

---- Opposite Party

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for Complainants.

              Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          Attracted by a Weight/Inch Loss Package given by the Opposite Party, the Complainant had purchased a Slimming Package (10 Kgs. Weight Loss & Inch Loss) at the cost of Rs.55,000/- from the Opposite Party. The package was offered after assessing the current body condition of the Complainants in end-August 2011. The Complainants had specifically told the Opposite Party that they would be able to attend their sessions on Sundays only. The package was to be designed according to Complainants requirement. The offer of the Opposite Party was as under:- 

“We take a scientific approach to weight loss, offering you customized solutions that address your core problem. Our doctors and dieticians study your diet history and create modified diets to suit your lifestyle. So you don’t have to go on a crash diet or take appetite suppressants; instead you can do it the easy way, your own way.”

          Two separate packages were obtained by the Complainant vide Package No. 110904002 and 110831011 dated 31.8.2011 and 4.9.2011. The amount was paid through monthly installments of Rs.9,166.67 through Credit Card (copies of credit card statements are at Annexure C-1). The Complainants attended the Slimming Clinic regularly from September, 2011 on almost every Sunday. However, even after 06 months, the promised results were not achieved. Little weight/inch loss as taken place. There were several shortcomings in the programme. The Package required regular interactions and counseling with the Doctor and Physiotherapist. This interaction took place only once and that too without any result. The Complainants many times sought an audience with the Advisor of the Opposite Party and Centre-in-Charge to discuss their problems, but they were seldom available. The Opposite Party used to obtain signatures of the Complainant prior to each session and details were not disclosed to the Complainants. 

          A voluminous diary called “Your Guide to Confidence” containing columns such as “Body Composition Chart”, “Figure Correction Chart (Measurement), “Sample Menu”, “dietary Recall/ Guidance”, “Appointment Schedule” and “Progress Report” were provided to the Complainants, which were to be filled in from time to time by the staff/ doctors of the Opposite Party. But not even a single entry has been made in these columns. After many verbal complaints, the Complainants took up the issue in writing with the Opposite Party (e-mail Annexure C-2 and reply at Annexure C-3). 

          As the Opposite Party has failed to reduce the weight or waist inches of either of the Complainants to the extent promised, the Complainants alleging deficiency in service have filed the instant complaint praying for refund of the amount charged along with conveyance expenses, damages for negligence, compensation and costs of litigation.

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.      

3.          Opposite Party in reply has taken the preliminary objection that all averments made by the Complainant are denied being false and without basis. Two Complainants have sought to challenge two separate contracts and separate cause of actions in one complaint. It is settled law that a party signing a document/ contract is bound by the same and is required to abide by the terms and conditions contained therein. The Complainants at the time of registration have specifically agreed to and signed the following declaration: -

“I have also been explained in the language that I understand that the results of each programme may vary from person to person depending upon individual body composition, health status, metabolism and other factors including diet and lifestyle and as such results of the programme(s) cannot be guaranteed and lack of results will not be construed as deficiency in service.” 

….

I understand that no guarantee/ assurance can be given to me regarding the result and outcome of the Programme and in circumstances of unsatisfactory results due to factors beyond the control of the staff of the Centre, I shall not be entitled to claim/ damages or to hold the Centre or its staff liable for the same.

….

I have also read and understood the Terms and Conditions of the Company and agree to abide by them. In the event of my failure to act according to the Terms and Conditions, my progrmme will be terminated without any reimbursement.”

          As such, the Complainants cannot now go beyond and against the terms agreed to by them at the time of registration.

          On merits, Opposite Party has denied all the averments of the Complainants. The Complainants themselves approached the Opposite Party and after being fully satisfied and having read and agreed to the terms and conditions including the fact that no guarantee could be given regarding weight loss, enrolled with the Opposite Party. The Complainants themselves opted for the 10 Kg. weight loss programme after consultation with the Opposite Party. There was offer for sessions on Sunday only and the Opposite Party has clearly intimated the Complainants that minimum of 08 sessions per month for females and 10 sessions per month for males was required to achieve best results. This is also clearly mentioned in Clause 3(e) of the terms and conditions duly signed by the Complainants. The Complainants have not attended the requisite number of sessions and have not been regular during the programme due to which the beneficial results have not been achieved. No guarantee was ever given for the results. Copies of Client Programme Record of Complainant No.1 & Complainant No.2 are at Ext. RW/A and Ext. RW/B respectively. A perusal of the Weight Record (Ext.RW/A and RW/B) reveals that the Complainants did not attend the requisite number of sessions or follow the advice given. Details of the sessions attended by the Complainants have been tabulated by the Opposite Party which is as under:-

          Further, record of Complainant No.1 shows that he used to have late & heavy meals and did no activity on more than one occasion. Despite this his weight reduced from 109.8 Kgs on 25.09.2011 to 102.9 Kgs on 28.11.2011. But it increased thereafter to 107.4 Kgs in June 2012 due to his continued failure to abide by the terms. Thus within initial 02 months, his weight reduced nearly 07 Kgs.

          In the same way, the weight of Complainant No.2 reduced from 77.3 Kgs. On 25.9.2011 to 74 Kgs. On 19.2.2012 and increased thereafter to 75.75 Kgs (3.3 Kgs).

          Though the programme was for around 120 days, the Opposite Party as a goodwill gesture extended the package without any extra payment. No complaint was received from the Complainants during the programme and also all records duly maintained by the Opposite Party as per Ext.RW/A and RW/B clarify the situation. No objection in this regard was ever received from the Complainants during the programme tenure. Also no false promises were given to the Complainants. Opposite Party has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

4.          Complainants have filed their separate replications by way of affidavit, inter alia, stating that reply has been filed by an Accountant and not by any Counsellor/Physiotherapist. The clauses cited by the Opposite Party are unconscionable and are liable to be ignored as they are not valid. On merits, it is contended that the Complainants were attracted by the wide spread publicity and tall claims of the Opposite Party to purchase the Slimming Package (10 Kgs Weight Loss & Inch Loss) at the cost of Rs.55,000/-. The 10 Kgs Weight Loss & Inch Loss was offered by the Opposite Party and the Complainants attended the Clinic regularly on almost every Sunday. There were several shortcomings in the programme which were pointed out. The contentions in the complaint have been reiterated. The Complainants have prayed that the complaint be allowed.      

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainants.

7.          The allegations of the Complainants are with regard to an offer received from the Opposite Party for a Slimming Package for which the Complainants have paid Rs.55,000/-. The credit card details of the Complainant are on record to prove that the monthly payments have been made to the Opposite Party. Annexure C-2 is an e-mail exchanged between the parties wherein the Complainants have shown dissatisfaction for the package. Annexure C-3 is a letter written by the Opposite Party to the Complainants placing reliance on the declaration signed by the Complainants to prove that the results achieved are in conjunction with eating habits and work out. Also that the Complainants did not follow the expert advises of VLCC’s expert personnel. It has been given that in the situation, Opposite Party cannot be held liable for the results.

8.          The Client Programme Record of both the Complainants have been placed on record by the Opposite Party at Ext. RW/A and Ext.RW/B. The relevant terms & conditions are as under: -

“3(e)     Minimum 8 sessions for females and 10 sessions for males are required per month for weight loss/ support therapy to achieve best results.”

          The declaration has already been reproduced above. The documents have been signed by the Complainants. The attendance chart is also on record, which shows the infrequent visits of the Complainants for the sessions. Also on record is the fact that the Complainant No.2 suffers from Thyroid and Migraine. It is common that a Thyroid patient has to make more efforts in weight loss which is natural to the physiological condition of the person.   

9.          The Complainants had paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- in all.  They have been visiting the Opposite Party for the full period only infrequently. It is their own averment that they attended the sessions almost every Sunday only which means a maximum of 4-5 times a week. The Opposite Party has contended that infrequent visits of the Complainants and wrong dietary habits have resulted in loss of less weight (07 Kgs by Complainant No.1, which has increased later and 3.3 Kgs by Complainant No.2 which has also increased afterwards).

10.        A person seeking a weight loss programme is well aware that the effort for the weight loss is not entirely of the institution offering the package but a self control also. Restriction about the diet, lifestyle, sedentary habits, physical exercise, sleeping pattern, quantum of fluid intake and variation in meal timings play a very important role in the actual results received. Also, if a person is suffering from a Thyroid disorder, the weight loss is much harder. There is no allegation by the Complainants that the Opposite Party has not attended them whenever they have visited for the Session. The only allegation is that the senior officers were not available to meet them to discuss their problems. However, the so-called problems have not been highlighted.         

11.        Looking at the complete picture and the infrequent visits of the Complainants to the Opposite Party and the allegations of the Opposite Party that the Complainants have not followed the correct diet and exercise programme, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it without costs.

12.        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

24^th July, 2013                  

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER