Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/43/2013

R.Radha W/o. K.N.Rama Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

VICC Health Care Ltd represented by its Central Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Gajendra

17 Jul 2014

ORDER

                                                                     Date of filing:27.07.2013

                                                                                                                                                         Date of Disposal:17.07.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, TIRUPATI.

 

PRESENT:Sri.M.Anand, President (FAC)

      Smt.T.Anitha, Member

                                  

THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.43/2013

 

Between

 

R.Radha,

W/o.K.N.Ramakrishna,

D.No.19-3-1A/H5, Postal Colony,

Near Koramenu Gunta Road,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                     …..Complainant.

 

And

 

 

VLCC Health Care Ltd.,

Rep. by its Central Manager,

M. Hariprasad,

D.No.8-49-1 VK City Centre,

AIR Bypass Road,

Opp. All India Radio Station,

Tirupati.                                                                                …..Opposite party.

 

          This complaint coming  before us for final hearing on 02.07.14 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.R.Gajendra, counsel for the complainant and opposite party remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

          This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining deficiency of service, as the opposite party failed to render the services properly.

          2.  The brief facts of the case are:-  The complainant approached the opposite party, who is running business in the name and style of “VLCC” Health Care Limited, at Tirupati. Accordingly, they have given advertisements that they will provide treatment for cure of various skin problems, hair care and weight reduction, within a span of short duration without any side effects. Attracted by the advertisement of the opposite party, the complainant approached them for the treatment of pigmentation (skin turn into black colour) in the neck, backside of the hands and back. The opposite party promised the complainant and assured her the pigmentation will be cured 100% and accordingly they collected Rs.72,000/- from her towards treatment fee in 4 installments and they gave treatment by applying some ointments to the affected area. She took such type of treatment for nearly       4 months, at the result, the problem is subsisting and there is no response for the treatment given by the opposite party and again opposite party demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for further treatment and also she stated that the opposite party assured her, the problem will be solved 100%, but the opposite party failed to do the service properly and her skin problem subsisting as usual and also stated that the opposite party squeezed money from the public by giving false advertisements, which amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite party on 23.04.2013 by calling upon the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.72,000/-, which was paid by the complainant for treatment. The opposite party received the notice but failed to comply the same. Hence, she filed the complaint praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.72,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of legal notice i.e. 23.04.2013, till the date of realization and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

          3.  Notice issued to opposite party returned unserved. Again paper publication published on 05.03.2014 and opposite party called absent and set exparte.

          4.   Affidavit on evidence of the complainant filed and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. The complainant filed the written arguments. Oral arguments heard.

          5.  The points for consideration is:-

(i).  whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite

       party towards the complainant?

(ii).  To what result?

          6.  Point No.(i):-  The counsel for the complainant was heard and perused the documents filed. The complainant contended that the opposite party in order to attract the public made false advertisements by giving assurance that they will give treatment for 100% cure any skin problems, hair care and weight loss. To support her contention, she has not filed any brochure, catalogue etc., in order to substantiate her case. The complainant further contended that she took skin treatment for pigmentation, due to that effect also, she failed to place any documentary evidence, except the receipts i.e. Ex.A1.  Ex.A2 is office copy of legal notice. In Ex.A1 receipt dt:31.08.2012, it is clearly mentioned that the services provided for the complainant were (temoslim, weight loss, body therapy, body fimer). But nowhere it is mentioned that she has taken skin treatment in the opposite party centre and also in the said receipt the name of the opposite party centre was mentioned as “Sri Hari Touch Me VLCC Health Care Limited”, but in the complaint, the name of the opposite party centre was mentioned as VLCC Private Limited. In order to substantiate her pleadings, the complainant failed to prove that she took skin treatment and paid the amount for treatment of the skin. Hence, except oral evidence and without any documentary evidence, it cannot be accepted and hold that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complainant failed to prove her case. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

          7.  Point No.(ii):-  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, no costs.

Typed by the stenographer, to the dictation and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 17^th day of July, 2014. 

 

      Sd/-                                                                                             Sd/-                             

Lady Member                                                                          President (FAC).

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: R.Radha (Affidavit filed.).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1		Cash receipts in favour of  Complainant issued by Opposite Party(4 in number).
2	23.04.2013	Office copy of  Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party with postal receipt.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

- Nil -

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-         

President (FAC)

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati. 

 

     

Copies to:

 

 

1.  The complainant.
2. The opposite party.