Judgment dated 29-07-2016

            This is a complaint made by one Dr. Anirvan Karmakar of South City Villa, Flat-2D, 61/2, B. L. Shah Road, Kolkata-700053 against the Director, VLCC Health Centre Block A, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700053 and the Manager, VLCC Health Centre Block A, New Alipore, Kolkata – 700053 praying for refund of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from October, 2014 till the amount is paid and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- .

            In brief the facts are that Complainant is a medical practitioner attached with the B. M. Birla Hospital & Heart Research Centre. Complainant through an advertisement of VLCC approached Mrs. Anupama, the Manager of this Centre for participating in the programme. Complainant paid Rs.15,000/- through his debit card. He attended weight loss programme during which he felt very sick and suffered profuse sweating and giddiness. Complainant being a medical practitioner requested the VLCC to reconsider the matter and cancel the programme for which he has paid. He also requested to refund the money since VLCC did not refund the money. So this case was filed.

            OP filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. It is the contention of the OP that they started program for the Complainant by taking Rs.15,000/- but when they found that Complainant was not in a position to sustain the programme so they stopped it. Further they have alleged that they are ready and willing to refund Rs.8071/- out of Rs.15,000/- . It is not possible for them to refund the total money because they spent a portion of the money in undertaking the programme . So they prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief against which OP filed questionnaire to which Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. OP also filed affidavit-in-chief in the form of written version. Thereafter both the sides filed written argument.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs for which he has prayed for.

            On perusal of affidavit-in-chief, questionnaire and affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of both the sides. It appears that they have reiterated their respective facts in this and OP have alleged that Complainant refused to receive the money which OPs are ready and willing to refund.

            Complainant in written argument has referred two decisions reported in SCC(2003) volume 8 731 and 1995 CPJ. However, on perusal of the contents of the written argument it is clear that these decisions are not applicable in the present case.

            After perusal the written argument and hearing both the parties we are of the view that the conduct of OP appears to be genuine and Complainant is entitled to that only. It is because Complainant attended the programme on which VLCC expend sufficient money, employed some person to attend the Complainant. As such OP is directed to refund Rs.8071/- to the Complainant.

            So far as question of compensation and litigation cost are concerned, the conduct of Complainant does not appear to in accordance with the law of equity and justice as because Complainant refused to accept the refund and so he is not entitled to any compensation and litigation cost.

            Hence,

            O R D E R E D

            CC/2/2016 and the same is allowed on contest in part.

            OPs are directed to pay Rs.8071/- to the Complainant within 2 months of this order, in default, the amount shall carry 12% interest p.a.