Delhi

North East

CC/212/2016

USHA SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NAAPTOL ONLINE SHOPPING LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 212/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Usha Sharma W/o Shri Ashok Sharma R/o House No.-30, Samrat Gali, Khajuri Khaas, Near Hero Honda Showroom, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Looks 21, Life Style Service Ltd. Khasra No. 1226, Rajokri Village-11, New Delhi-110038.   Naptool Online Shopping Ltd Registered office at 11, Conopus, Kabra Galaxy Star-1 CHS, Brahmand, Azad Nagar, Thane West, 400607 (Maharashtra)	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION :

16.08.2016 06.11.2019 06.11.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Grievance of the complainant as made out in the present complaint is that she had purchased Looks 21 Hair Loss Concealer manufactured by OP2 on 12.04.2016 through OP1 online shopping portal vide order no. 21854660 on COD basis for a total sum of  Rs. 1298/- inclusive freight charges and the said product was delivered at the address of the complainant on 16.04.2016 vide bill no. 847581/DL/00055000/2016-2017. The said product claimed that after its use, the hair would be dense and beautiful. However, on usage of the said product within 1-2 days, hair fall started and within next 3-4 days, more than half of the scalp of the complainant became bald. The complainant has lodged several complaints with the customer care of OPs regarding the said hair loss problem but were ignored. On 06.05.2016, the complainant lodged a complaint before SDM Nand Nagri, Delhi against the OPs and OPs appeared and offered refund of the price of the product alongwith Rs. 600 to Rs. 700/- as compensation which was refused by the complainant. Therefore alleging physical and social embarrassment due to use of said product manufactured and marketed / advertized / sold by OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for issuance of direction against the OPs to pay for the hair loss medical treatment undergone by the complainant and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

Complainant has attached copy of bill / purchase invoice of the Looks 21 manufactured by OP2 sold by OP1.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 29.08.2016. None appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service effected on 07.11.2016 and was therefore proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.02.2017. OP1 entered appearance and filed written statement vide which it resisted the complaint on grounds that it is an online marketing platform which enters into Merchant Agreements with several vendors and brands and offers products information and deals to customers through its website and advertisement through TV channels, newspapers advertisement and website information in multiple media formats and is not involved in any kind of manufacturing or production activities. The mode of operation is that once the buyer places an order through phone call, the order number is forwarded to concerned seller which is solely responsible for the quality of the product and repair / replacement / refund in case of any after sales issue. Per Contra, OP1 submitted that on receiving the order of “Looks 21 Hair Loss Concealer” from the complainant, OP1 forwarded the said order to OP2 i.e. Looks 21 Life Style for delivery purpose which then packed the said product and dispatched it to complainant’s address and consideration thereof was paid accordingly at the time of handing over of the product. OP1 submitted that its role was limited to that extent only of accepting and forwarding the order. In so far as the quality of the product in question is concerned, OP1 submitted that the advertisement for the same on its website clearly mentioned that ‘it does not work as to grow hair’ and is only used to cover the hair or make the same look dense and is a ‘makeup product’ for external beautification. OP1 submitted that it takes care of the product advertised on its website and has a separate independent customer care department for resolution of issues of their customers on which helpline the complainant called several times but only to enquire about the usage and features of the product which she was guided upon by its staff and she never registered any complaint regarding the product with the customer care department of OP1 and also never mentioned the allegation of loss of hair with the department. OP1 submitted that the said problem of the complainant was not because of the product in question but was probably due to other reasons such as hormonal, medication, chemical usage etc as the said product has not caused hair fall in any of its customers as no such complaint in this regard has ever been received which proves that the product was of good quality. OP1 further resisted the complaint on grounds that complainant has not attached / produced any doctors prescription regarding issue of hair fall to prove her allegation and when OP offered refund of the said product with compensation before SDM Court, it was flatly refused by the complainant without assigning any reason. Lastly, OP1 defended itself of not having indulged in any deficiency of service by urging that it is a reputed company and has not caused any physical, financial and mental harassment to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP1 has attached copy of product details of Looks 21 Hair Loss Concealer as advertised on its portal and copy of call records of the complainant logged with its customer care department.

3. Complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit praying that the same may be treated for the purpose of rejoinder as well in which it exhibited the description of the product, copy of bill, copy of medical documents OPD card of GTB Hospital, Delhi 16.01.2017 viz Histopathology Report of Scalp Biopsy dated 27.01.2017 and photographs of complainant showing bald head as Exhibit C1 to C4.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by OP1 reiterating the defence taken in the written statement.
5. Written arguments were filed by both parties in reassertion of their respective grievance/ defence.
6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the counsel for the complainant and have given our anxious consideration to the documents placed on record by both the parties.

The case now falls for adjudication on consideration. The key issue for adjudication is whether the product in question manufactured by OP2 advertised / marketed / sold by OP1 to complainant was responsible for hair loss and balding and the subsequent diagnosis of Lichen Planopilaris (LPP) made by GTB Hospital as per Scalp Biopsy Report and if yes, compensation if any complainant entitled to against OPs for the same.

Let us first and foremost examine the nature of the product and the purpose for which it is used. The concealer is used to cover / conceal bald spots or thinning hair on the scalp and claims to be ideal for purpose of creating natural hair loss fibers. The very fact that the complainant had purchased a product which is a hair loss concealer is a very big give away in as much as its speaks volumes about the preexisting hair falls / hair loss problem already being suffered by the complainant in terms of balding patches and thinning hair on scalp to conceal which the said product was intended to be purchased and used. Secondly, as per the OPD card of GTB Hospital, Delhi dated 16.01.2017, the complainant, known case of diabetes (on OHA) has herself complained about receding frontal hairline and was diagnosed provisionally as suspected case of Lichen Planus Pilaris (LPP) and Alopecia for which she was advised to undergo Skin Biopsy of Scalp which when undergone, revealed consistency with LPP. LPP is a chronic inflammatory condition / scaring folliculitis that affects the scalp resulting in patches of hair loss and mostly affects women (70 to 80%) of menopausal age of 40 to 60 years. LPP causes permanent hair loss and scaring due to alopecia and the distinct feature of this diseased is hair loss in random irregular pattern in patches with eventual merging of hairless patches. The hair follicles are often observed to be reddish and scaly due to inflammation. LPP causes receding frontal hairline and scaring of frontal scalp. It is an auto immunity disease which attacks the hair follicles and often genetic and caused by medication for high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease. The hair loss is irreversible.

The medical history of the complainant being a known case of diabetes and on Optimal Oral Hypoglycemic Agents (OHA) revealed through the OPD card of GTB Hospital and scalp biopsy report that she was already suffering from receding frontal hairline and patchy hair loss and was suspected to be suffering LPP and Alopecia which was only confirmed from scalp biopsy report found consistent with LPP. The nature of diseased has already being discussed in details in forgoing para and is an auto-immune disease of scalp which menopausal women above 50 years are prone to specially ones who are on medication for diabetes and HTN. The said disease could not have been possibly caused or triggered by the use of the product in question, the onus to prove which laid solely on the complainant which she failed to prove in terms of facta probanda and facta probantia. The complainant evidently purchased the said product to conceal the balding patches and thinning hair line which was its sole purpose and has attempted vide the present complaint to blame the said product for hair loss caused by an auto-immune disease which cannot be allowed. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as devoid of merits with no order as to costs.

7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.  File be consigned to record room.
9.  Announced on 06.11.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member