DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1. Pratibha Sharma wife of Sh Naveen Sharma resident of H. No. 160, Tribune Mitra Vihar, Sector 29, Panchkula.

             …..Complainants

Versus

1]  M/s VLCC Wellness Centre , SCO No. 425-426, First floor, Himalaya Marg, above KFC, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Director/
Authorized person.

2]  M/s VLCC Health Care Limited, M-14, Greater Kailash-II, Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110048 (India) through its Chairman/authorized person.

        ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA             MEMBER

Argued by  : Sh. Naren Partap Singh, Adv. for complainant.

   Sh. Varun Mittal, Adv. for OPs.

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         Concisely, the complainant allured with the advertisement of the OPs  for weight loss programme, booked the same and paid a sum of Rs.2.00 lakh vide receipt Annexure C-1. At the time of booking the package the complainant was told that all the services were to be availed at VLCC, Manimajra, Chandigarh and accordingly the complainant continued to attend the health programme with OP No.1. However on 3.1.2019 the complainant received a message from the OPN.1 that all accounts and client packages are being transferred to VLCC Sector 35, Chandigarh Centre.  The complainant immediately protested the same with OP No.1. The representative of OP No.1 assured the complainant that  if she cannot join the programme at Sector 35, Chandigarh then she need not to worry as her entire amount of Rs.2.00 lakh shall be refunded. However, later on the OPs denied refunding the amount.  As it was not possible for the complainant to visit the centre of the OPs at Sector 35, Chandigath being far away from her house she time and again requested for refund of her money but in vain.  Ultimately the complainant served a legal notice dated 25.3.2019 upon the Ops but to no avail.  It is alleged that  despite paying amount of Rs.2.00 lakh  for the package the OPs arbitrarily shifted the centre and the complainant could not continue with the weight loss programme thereby caused set back to her body and health and mind as well as financial loss. Alleging the aforesaid acts of the OPs unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, this complaint has been filed.     

2.  In their written statement the OPs while admitting the factual matrix of the complaint stated that the complainant had approached the OPs for weight loss on 31.7.2015 and various services were availed by the complainant and the complainant was satisfied with the services of the OPs.  Therefore, she further purchased a new treatment for slimining and weight loss on 16.3.2017. It is alleged that the complainant did not follow the diet as per terms of the treatment and it was due to unhealthy and uncontrolled diet and other diseases of the complainant the treatment could not achieve the desired result.  In spite of several regular suggestions and follow-ups the complainant failed to manage her diet for the best reasons known to her.  It is further asserted that the Manimajra office of OPs was closed on 7.1.2019 by which time the validity of the package booked by the complainant on 16.3.2017 had already expired. The  message dated 3.1.2019 with regard to closure of Mani Majra Centre was circulated to all the existing as well as old customers as an intimation.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.  The contesting parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

4.  We have gone through the record and heard the arguments advanced by both the sides

5.       It is admitted fact that the complainant availed weight loss package from the OPs on 16.3.2017 after paying an amount of Rs.2.00 lakh vide receipt Annexure C-1.  It is submitted by the Ops in the reply that the said package availed by the complainant was for weight loss of 15 Kgs. and validity of the package was for 150 days, which expired long ago.

6.  It is vehemently argued by the counsel for  the complainant that the complainant was constrained to achieve the committed result of loss of 15 kgs weight as the OPs in midway shifted their premises to Sector 35 Chandigarh which is far away from the residence of the complainant.  It is the averment of the complainant that the complainant availed the services of OPs because the centre of the Ops was near her residence but in the midway received a message from the Ops that they shifted their centre to Sector 35, Chandigarh far away from the residence of the complainant and it became harder for the complainant to attend the centre of the Ops at Sector 35 Chandigarh.

7.  The OPs in their defence submitted that since the package was only for 150 days started on 16.3.2017 yet they as a goodwill gesture continued to give services to the complainant upto 13.3.2018 i.e. much beyond the validity period of 150 days.  It is asserted that due to poor dietary   regime followed by the complainant desired result could not be attained. During the course of arguments the counsel for the complainant drawn our attention towards the nature of the package availed by the complainant. counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the OPs acted arbitrarily by shifting their premises and thus caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant besides monetary loss. State further that they also failed to fulfill their commitment made under the package in question as per Annexure OP-2 under money back challenge.

8.  On thorough perusal of the record  it is gathered that the Ops failed to provid due services to the complainant and belied in stating that the validity of the package was 150 days. The OPs placed on record Annexure OP-3 i.e. ‘Client Programme record’ which shows that the complainant availed the services of the Ops upto 13.3.2018. Whereas the complainant in order to contradict this version of the Ops  placed on, record a single page Slimming Programme Record alongwith the written arguments which clearly shows that the complainant availed the services of the OPs till 11.12.2018 and the committed result, of 15kgs’ weight loss  under the package was not yet achieved.

9.      A perusal of the record further reveals that due to shifting of the centre of the OPs it  became harder for the complainant to attend the OPs Centre far away from  her residence.  We find force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant that the Ops not only failed to give desired/committed result but also wrongly stated that as a goodwill gesture they continued with the package beyond alleged 150 days, whereas in actual the treatment was for loss of 15 Kgs weight as evident from Annexure OP-2. There is also no recording of the factum in Annexure OP-2 that the validity period of the package was of 150 days as claimed by the OPs.

        Above all the package availed by the complainant was covered under the money back challenge, offer of the OPs meaning thereby, that in the eventuality of non-achieving the result the money was to be refunded back. The OPs also failed to pin-point that the services were rendered as per the commitment and the breakup given in Annexue OP-2

10.      From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice has been proved on the part of OPs. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed. Undoubtedly, the complainant has availed the package in question under the money back scheme of the OPs. However, keeping in view the factum that the complainant has availed services of the OPs, it would be in the fitness of justice if refund is ordered in proportionate manner instead of refund of entire deposited amount. Accordingly, in our opinion refund of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant would meet the end of justice. Thus, the Ops are directed as under:-

         i)  To refund Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant.

         ii) to pay  composite amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment  suffered by the complainant as also towards cost of litigation.

          This order be complied with by OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to pay additional amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room

Announced

23.8.2022.