Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/39

Jasbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Red lover clinic & sliming centre - Opp.Party(s)

20 Aug 2018

ORDER

 

                    CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                           GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

                                                                                                 Date of institution: 13.01.2016

Complaint Case. No.39/16                                            Date of order:    20.08.2018

IN  MATTER OF

 

Jasbir Singh, K-33, Gali no.13, Krishna Park Extn, New Delhi-110018                                                                                                                                                        Complainant

VERSUS

Rediscover Clinic & Slimming Center, B-1/5, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058

                                                           

                                                                                                                        Opposite party     

                                    ORDER

PUNEET LAMBA, MEMBER

                        Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had taken weight management plan from OP for weight reduction and body shape by paying sum of Rs. 20,000/- .  After consultation and discussion, OP suggested to take up treatment plan for reduction of 10 k.g weight along with 5lypo R+5 Ayurveda Massage. The complainant was 110 kg when he started with treatment.  But the desired results were not seen even after one month. Therefore, Op again suggested that complainant must take course of minimum 5 Meso Therapy and assured that this plan will definitely reduce the body weight. As per the suggestions and advice of OP  5 Meso therapy are also taken including convert 3 Ayurveda in Lypo -R by paying  further sum of Rs. 23,000/- in two parts, the receipts of same were issued after six seven weeks. But still no positive result was achieved and the Op was informed. The Op again after discussion  told the complainant to  join in morning shift as the trainer at morning shift is quit efficient. The complainant again on advice of OP continuously followed the treatment programe including diet plan from the Op. However even after five months approximately no effective results were shown and the weight still persisted at 110 k.g. The complainant again approached the op but no satisfactory reply was given by them. Hence the present complaint for directions to the OP to refund the amount given for treatment plan.          

                        Notice of the complaint was sent to the Op. But none put in appearance on its behalf. Therefore, they are proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.05.2016.

                        When the complainant was asked to tender affidavit of evidence he filed evidence affidavit dated 30.08.2016 stating the facts of the complaint he also relied on weight management record dated 13.04.2015, receipts dated 22.05.2015 , 10.06.2015 and 13.06.2015 and communications  e-mails.

                        We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the affidavit and material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The controversy involved in the present complaint is that the complainant took weight management plan with OP but they failed to show any effective results. The document placed on record shows that the complainant was 110 kg at time of start of the weight management treatment program and during whole treatment plan which lasted for five six months only minimal weight i.e in grams was reduced. Whereas the OP charged for treatment for 10kg  reduction in weight. Since the  OP failed to provide the desired results as assured by it, they  committed deficiency in service and thus are liable to refund the amount taken for said treatment. The OP kept on giving false assurances to the complainant for the reduction of weight. Needless to say that by misleading and adopting unfair trade practice OP kept on changing the treatment plan to extract more money. The OP gave false hopes without any concrete results. When the complainant  approached the OP informing it about zero results, no heed was paid.   

Moreover the affidavit of evidence of the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. There is sufficient material on record which substantiates the version of the complainant. We are of considered view that Op only with motive to extort money from complainant gave false assurance by adopting unfair trade practice. The OP mislead the complainant with their deceptive practice and unethical approach. The OP is liable for making deceptive claims.  The  complainant not only suffered financially but mentally also. Despite service Op chose not to defend its case despite being  aware of the proceedings and this shows that they have nothing to say in their defense against allegations made by the complainant.  The OP miserably failed to provide the desired results for which they assured the complainant.    

In light of above discussion and observation we direct the OP to refund total sum of Rs. 43,000/- amount charged by the OP with interest @6% p.a. from date of filing of the complaint till actual realization.  We also award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. 

Order pronounced on :- 20.08.2018

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                                                   (K.S. MOHI)                       MEMBER                                                                                                              PRESIDENT