Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/88/2014

P. SUNITHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRABAS V CARE HEALTH CLINIC PVT LTD., - Opp.Party(s)

T.V. SRIRAM

27 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:  Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH     :     PRESIDENT

                     Thiru R.VENKATESAPERUMAL    :      MEMBER

 

 

C.C.No.88 of 2014

Monday, the 27^th day of June 2022

 

Complaint  filed on : 27.06.2014

Orders Pronounced on : 27.06.2022

 

 

P. Sunitha

S/o. Pramod Singh

44, Srinivasa First Cross Street

Chennai – 600 091.                                                 .. Complainant

 

- Vs –

 

Praba’s  VCare Health Clinic (P) Ltd.,

No.30, Rajabathar Street

Pondy Bazaar

T.Nagar,  Chennai – 600 017.                                .. Opposite Party

             

 

    Counsel for the Complainant           :  M/s. T.V. Sriram

    Counsel for the Opposite party        :  M/s. Soundar Vijay & Arulram                                         

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing today, on 06.06.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                This complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties, for the following directions to the opposite party,

1. To handover the expenses made for the treatment to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- ;
2. To pay a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation for mental torture, loss of prestige and peace of mind suffered by the complainant; and
3. To pay the cost of the proceedings.

 

             2.     The gist of the Complaint averments are as follows:   The case of the complainant is that she happened to see an advertisement in the Media that the opposite party/ VCare Health Clinic would solve all the hair related problems.  Since the complainant did not have proper hair growth on head, she approached the opposite party VCare Health Clinic, where it was informed that if she comes to their clinic regularly for 18 months and take treatment, she would get normal hair growth.  Believing the words of the opposite party, the complainant agreed to take treatment from them.  Initially, the complainant paid Rs.800/- and the opposite party asked her to do hair test.  She paid another sum of Rs.15,000/- and went to the clinic regularly.  She paid either Rs.4000/- or Rs.5000/- whenever demanded by the opposite party.  In spite of taking treatment for nearly 18 months, the complainant did not have proper hair growth, but, the opposite party stated that it could be due to thyroid problem, whereupon she went to Thyrocare for testing, as prescribed by the opposite party.  One Dr.Vasumathi, M.D (Internal Medicine) DGO, who treated the complainant in Thyrocare, had stated that the non-growth of hair is not due to thyroid problem.  However, the complainant underwent treatment for thyroid and the problem was brought under control.  Despite the same, she had no hair growth.  Finally, the opposite party stated that since the complainant is having ‘Alopecia Areata’ she is not getting positive results.  By then, the complainant had paid nearly Rs.1,50,000/- to the opposite party.  Thus, the opposite party’s Clinic had given false hope and wasted the money of the complainant.  Being a II year student of SIET College, she was not willing to see the world.  She was so much depressed.  Thereafter, the complainant approached Dr.Romington’s Skin and Hair Care Centre, where she took treatment and had positive results. The advertisement of the opposite party VCare says that anybody can approach them to have remedy for hair impairment on head.  By false advertisements, the opposite party/ VCare Clinic lured clients and also charged exorbitant fees, which is nothing but unfair trade practice.  Hence, she has filed the present complaint, for the reliefs stated supra.                                       

 

                3.   Countering the same, the opposite party has filed their version.  They denied the averments/ allegations made by the complainant but agreed that they generally stated that there would be normal growth of hair on their treatment, without specifying any span of time for such treatment.  Since every individual possess unique health condition, the treatment would vary accordingly.  The payment of fees to the opposite party clinic is very reasonable.  The expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- in all, stated to have been made by the complainant, is also not admitted.  The respondent clinic did not make any statement that ‘Alopecia Areata’ cannot be cured and the complainant will not get positive results.  The complainant on the first day, i.e., on 25.06.2012, has agreed and signed to the terms and conditions for the treatment given by the opposite party.  Clause 8 & 9 of the terms and conditions reads as follows:-

“8.  While treating patient for Alopecia Areata, there could be unusual darkening, swellings, reddishness, inflammation, which are normal symptoms when the treatment is in progress.

9.   Depending on the age and body condition, result and duration of treatment will vary from individual to individual.”

 

The complainant’s thyroid condition was drastically bad when she was under treatment with the opposite party clinic and when the complainant discontinued her treatment with them, the complainant managed to bring down the thyroid level to some extent.  When the complainant went to Dr.Romington’s Skin and Hair Care Centre for treatment, her thyroid condition was under control.  The subsequent hair growth of the complainant could be, apart from restoration of stable thyroid condition, also due to latent effect of the opposite party clinic’s treatment.  The fact that the complainant could not get the desired result whilst receiving the treatment from the opposite party, would not tantamount to deficiency of service.  The opposite party never lured the clients with any false promise under advertisements and they never charged exorbitant fees.  Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and so, they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

        4.    In order to prove the case, the complainant, along with proof affidavit, has filed 18 documents and the same have been marked as Ex.A1 to A18.   On the side of the opposite party, along with proof affidavit 8 documents have been filed and marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B8.

 

        5.  When the matter was taken up for consideration, counsel for the complainant made detailed submissions by adverting to the averments in the complaint and stated that, based on the false promises of the opposite party that they would solve all hair-related problems, the complainant has spent money to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- towards recovery of hair loss on the head, but, the opposite party has not cured the hair problem.  During treatment, had the opposite party duly informed that the complainant’s hair problem cannot be cured, she would have gone to Dr.Romington’s Skin and Hair Care Centre for treatment at the initial stage itself.  The opposite party, through advertisements in Television, Newspapers etc., assured that they would give a complete solution to all hair related problems, such assurance is a blatant falsehood, which is nothing but unfair trade practice.  The complainant has also produced a CD along with the proof affidavit to suggest that positive assurance given by the opposite party while canvassing the clients with sugar coated words, at the time of admission in their Clinic, was only to lure the clients and earn money.  Based on the false assurance given by the opposite party to the complainant in person that she would get 100% growth of hair, the complainant started taking treatment with the opposite party.  Later, when the complainant approached Dr.Romington’s Skin and Hair Care Centre for treatment of hair growth, a questionnaire was prepared by Dr.Romington’s Clinic, which would prove the negative result upon the complainant by the treatment received from the opposite party. 

 

        6.  Per contra, counsel for the respondent/ opposite party contended that the complaint has been filed purposely with malicious intention, only for the purpose of unjust enrichment.  There is no pleading or proof affidavit, alleging any specific deficiency.  On 25.06.2012, the complainant approached the opposite party for hair fall treatment and on the same day, after diagnosis, they had informed the complainant that she was affected by Alopecia Areata, which is an auto immune disorder.  The opposite party, on the first day itself informed the complainant that there could be no assured results for this disorder and after prolonged treatment, there may be some improvement in the hair growth.  After thorough enquiry and upon satisfaction, the complainant subjected herself to the treatment with the opposite party at the hands of qualified Doctors in the clinic.  In fact, earlier, the complainant had undergone treatment by taking steroid injection for scalp.  It was also found that she was suffering from thyroid problem.  The complainant agreed for treatment with the opposite party knowing fully well that there would not be any assured result, since she already had Alopecia Areata.  She was also suggested to take treatment for the thyroid issue before commencing treatment with the opposite party.  Further, the complainant had paid only Rs.58,883/-.  She took treatment till 16.10.2013, which is evident from the document marked as Ex.B6.  Thereafter, she did not continue the treatment for the reasons best known to her.  The opposite party did not assure any sort of immediate results at any point of time.  The complainant suffered from Alopecia Areata, which is a general term for the hair loss that can occur at any age.  It usually causes small coin sized round patches of baldness on the scalp and may also affect the hair elsewhere such as the beard, eyebrows, eyelashes, body and limbs.   It is not possible to predict the extent of hair loss and re-growth in typical Alopecia Areata as it is usually over a period of some months or years, but it cannot be guaranteed.  The opposite party never telecasted any such advertisement, as alleged by the complainant.  Ex.A6/ CD does not relate to the complainant or her case of hair problem, rather it is a presentation produced by the specialists at the opposite party’s clinic regarding different diseases.  The said video content available in Youtube and on Internet does not relate to Aloepecia Areata, by which the complainant was affected.  It was published much later to the date of the complainant’s admission to the opposite party clinic.  Thus, no case has been made out by the complainant.  Furthermore, no evidence has been produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations made out against the opposite party. The counsel for the opposite party, by relying upon certain judgments of the Apex Court and National Commission, ultimately sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

        7.  Considered the submissions of the counsel for the complainant and that of the opposite party and carefully perused the materials available on record.  

 

        8. It is the case of the complainant that, believing the advertisement of the opposite party, she approached them for her hair problem.   She had taken treatment nearly for 18 months.  Inspite of the same, her hair problem was not cured.  Thereafter, she went to another clinic viz., Dr.Romington’s Skin and Hair Care Centre.  After taking treatment there, she had normal hair growth.  Hence, according to her, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  But, it is the contention of the opposite party that they never assured that the complainant would have hair growth, since she was suffering from Aloepecia Areata. She was also having thyroid problem.  Therefore, according to the opposite party, they have not given any assurance that her hair problem would be solved.  Further, it is the submission of the opposite party that her normal hair growth at a later point of time could be due to the reduction of thyroid level and subsequent effects of the treatment received from their clinic.  Therefore, they sought to dismiss the complaint.   But, we find that the complainant had taken continuous treatment for a period of 18 months.  In order to prove, whether the treatment given by the opposite party is a proper one or not, no expert evidence was produced.  In cases of this nature, when there is an ambiguity as to whether the treatment given by the opposite party is correct or not, certainly expert evidence is necessary.  Unfortunately, the complainant has not taken any steps to adduce any expert evidence.  Despite that, from the documents available on record, particularly, Ex.A1, we are able to find that the opposite party has made an advertisement and booked clients stating that they would solve all the hair problems and such advertisement had lured the complainant to approach them.  Though the opposite party had stated in the version that the complainant was suffering from Aloepecia Areata and so, her hair problem could not be cured, they have not filed anything to suggest that such information was made known by them to the complainant, at the time of her admission for the treatment. Therefore, we are made to arrive at a conclusion that by giving false hope to the clients through advertisements that they would solve all hair related problems, the opposite party made them to believe that they would get hair growth, which act is nothing but unfair trade practice.  On this ground alone, we are inclined to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation, payable by the opposite party to the complainant. 

 

        9.  In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] as compensation to the complainant, for the mental agony suffered by her due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite practice.

 

                The above direction shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount mentioned above shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till the date of realisation.   

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                            R.SUBBIAH

MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex. A1               Student Card    

Ex.A2                Ration Card

Ex.A3                Pass Book – Bank of India

Ex.A4                Legal notice sent by the Complainant

Ex.A5                Reply to the legal notice sent by the opposite party

Ex.A6                Video Advt. of the opposite party

Ex.A7                Medical Bills as prescribed by the opposite party

Ex.A8                Prescriptions of the opposite party

Ex.A9                Certificate for undergoing treatment

issued by the opposite party

Ex.A10              Sugam Diagnostic Centre Bills

Ex.A11              Thyrocare Bill

Ex.A12              Letter from University regarding re-admission of the  

  complainant

Ex.A13              Medical prescription of Dr.Vasumathi

Ex.A14              Prescription List of fruits for diet

Ex.A15              Reports of Dr.Romington’s Skin and Hair Care Clinic    

Ex.A16              Questionnaire of Dr.Romington’s clinic

Ex.A17              Prescriptions of Dr.Romington

Ex.A18              Photos for non-growth of hair even after treatment

                                  With the opposite party

 

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Ex. B1       10.05.2013       Snapshot of Video             

Ex.B2        27.06.2012       Letter given by the opposite party

Ex.B3               -               Leaflet regarding Alopecia Areata

Ex.B4                -               Material describing Alopecia Areata

Ex.B5                -               Summary of Bills given by the complainant

   [27.06.2012 to 16.10.2013]

Ex.B6                                Bills collected by the opposite party

   [June 2012 to October 2013]

Ex.B7                                Details of Neomercazole tablets

Ex.B8                                Photos of patients with grown hair.

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                        R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/June /2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.88 of 2014

HON’BLE  JUSTICE

THIRU R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT

        In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] as compensation to the complainant, for the mental agony suffered by her due to the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite practice.

 

        The above direction shall be complied within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount mentioned above shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till the date of realisation.   

 

MEMBER               PRESIDENT              

27.06.2022           27.06.2022