DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.186/2019
Abhishek Bansal
4025, Sector B, Pkt-5&6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
Vibes Healthcare Ltd.
D-5, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 03.07.2019
Date of Order : 29.08.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Adv. Siddharth, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Adv. Karan Sinha for OP.
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Complainant booked ten sessions for weight and inch loss programme for17th to 20th April, 2019 called Non-Invasive Liposuction (NSLS) from Vibes Health Care Ltd, hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. It is stated that the representative of OP told the complainant that ‘Injection ‘Defat’ is a permanent solution for fat cells reduction and guarantees loss of two to four inches but it takes about a months time to show results. Complainant was informed that the said injection was hundred percent effective and no risk was involved.
3. Allured by the promises, complainant decided to get himself injected with Injection ‘Defat’ on 21.04.2019. After taking the injection complainant lost 4.2 Kgs in seven days which is attributable to the exertion and walking as he was travelling. Cost of one session’s injection (1 ML) was Rs. 1,51,040/- and complainant was offered fifty percent discount on the same. Finally, after discount and adjustment, complainant paid Rs.84,960/- to OP.
4. Complainant’s second injection was scheduled on 17.05.2019, whereas the result of first ‘Injection ‘Defat’’ was still pending till 21.05.2019. It is stated that complainant’s weight remained constant till 17.05.2019, whereas, as per OP it was to reduce. Hence, the said injection did not bring about the desired result neither in weight loss nor in inch loss.
5. It is next stated that just after two days of the injection, complainant gained 13 Cms, which was not recorded instead the said measurement was recorded on a separate register so that it does not come in the notice of the complainant. However, OP started a new treatment ‘Sculpsure’ for which the complainant paid for three sessions on 20.05.2019. It was stated that complainant on 27.05.2019 told the Centre Head that there was Zero result and sought refund from OP. After communicating with different representative of OP, complainant’s measurement was again taken on 17.06.2019 which were the same as of 02.06.2019. It is stated that OP on 17.06.2019 offered that they would give one injection free of cost and if still no results are found, complainant’s money would be refunded. However complainant’s money was never refunded.
6. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, it is prayed that OP be directed to pay Rs.47,200/- towards NSLS, Rs.75,520/- towards ‘Defat’, Rs.84,960/- NSLS converted to ‘Defat’ with extra payment, Rs.26,550/- towards sculpsure, totaling to Rs.2,34,230/-; Penalty for not refunding (Rs92,630/-= 66,080 +26,550/-) and Rs. 2,64,770/- for harassment & mental agony.
7. OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that complainant’s allegation that OP has charged him more for the ‘Defat’ Injections is baseless as the complainant is referring to the price charged by online seller based in France. It is stated that the price quoted to the complainant was the price fixed by OP and which was agreed to be paid by the complainant .
8. It is stated that the complainant booked for 05 NSLS + Tekar Therapy and paid an amount of Rs.47,200/-. Complainant joined for tummy reduction (Tekar) treatment on 17.04.2019 and visited the clinic of OP on 21.04.2019 for availing his session. It is stated that as the complainant was looking for faster results in minimum number of visits, representative of OP advised another advanced treatment. After detailed discussion and explanation, complainant booked 20 ml of ‘Defat’ for tummy and paid Rs.75,520/-.
9. It is stated that complainant again visited the clinic for his NSLS session on 30.04.2019. After seeing the changes in the weight as the complainant was satisfied, he further booked for two sessions of 20 ml ‘Defat’ each, after adjusting his initial package of Rs.47,200/-, he paid the differential amount of Rs.84,960/-. This resulted in conversion of original package of the complainant to a new package which now stood as 5 NSLS + Tekar (Converted to ‘Defat’ treatment) 20 ml ‘Defat’ and further 40 ml ‘Defat’ for tummy.
10. It is next stated that after being satisfied and clearing all his queries complainant paid Rs.550/- as advance and availed the first session of the said programme. After seeing the results, complainant paid the balance of Rs.26,000/- before the second session. It is stated that during the entire treatment, complainant did not complain about the results. It is only after the session were over that complainant started to demand refund of his money.
11. It is next stated that the complainant had lost 18 cms from his tummy from joining the programme in two months from 17.04.2019 to 17.06.2019. The said fact clearly shows that outcome of the services provided by OP are satisfactory. It is alleged that the complainant has not approached the commission with clean hands. It is stated that complainant has availed all the services, which he paid for and that the complaint is an afterthought just to extort money and harass OP.
12. In light of the facts stated above, it is prayed that the complaint be rejected and heavy cost be imposed on the complainant for harassing OP.
13. Complainant has filed the rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint and refuting the statement made by OP. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
14. Complainant’s case is that he booked himself for weight loss and inch loss NSLS programme and without completing the sessions, he opted for ‘Defat’ Injections and then took Sculpsure treatment from OP with a period of about two months. We are unable to understand if the complainant was dissatisfied with the services of OP why did he continue to take the treatment and kept opting for new programmes of OP. More over the complainant himself has admitted the fact that he lost about 4kg weight after taking the ‘Defat’ Injection but he attributed the same to travel and exertion which is little hard to believe.
15. Complainant’s contention regarding excess price charged for ‘Defat’ injections is not admissible as the price charged by OP is the same which the complainant had agreed to, before getting the said injections administered.
16. In A.N Sehgal Vs DDA I (1996) CPJ 34 Hon’ble National Commission held that pricing is not within the jurisdiction of Consumer Foras. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble National Commission in Mukund Damodar Raghuvir Vs CIDCO Ltd. III (2015) CPJ 29.
17. Complainant’s allegation regarding the treatment being not proper has not been substantiated. No expert opinion has been adduced to prove the fact that the medicines used or the treatment given by OP was not appropriate or did not give the desired result. The onus to prove the allegation was on the complainant which he has not been able to discharge.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following
“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”
19. In light of the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed being frivolous and devoid of merit.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
