Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/99/2018

Munish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC Health Care Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

17 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,   U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	99 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	13.02.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	17.09.2018

 

 

 

 

Munish Kumar, R/o #300/8, Block-A, Adarsh Nagar, Naya Gaon, District Mohali       

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  VLCC Health Care Limited, M-14, Greater Kailash-II, Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110048 through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory.

2]  VLCC Health Care Limited, SCO No.43, Pocket No.2, Chandigarh-Kalka Highway, Manimajra, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/Authorised Signatory.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Varun Mittal, Adv. for Opposite Parties.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

         The case of the complainant, briefly is that on being allured by the advertisement of OPs, the complainant visited OP No.1 for treatment of hair loss and Meso Scalp and paid an amount of Rs.44,999.49 including taxes on 24.4.2017 (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It is averred that the treatment was started, but was discontinued after some days on the ground that it has to be given in different sittings.  It is also averred that the complainant demanded the Brochure or Schedule of Treatment to know when to come for treatment, but it was refused by the OPs stating that the complainant will be intimated telephonically.  It is submitted that almost three months passed and there were hardly few sittings and in those sittings also nothing concrete was done and the problem of the hair loss remained the same. It is further submitted that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties a number of times and apprised them that the service as promised has not been provided by them, as they have failed to provide the time limit and the schedule for the said treatment.  It is stated that every time the Opposite Parties assured the complainant that soon the treatment shall be started at full pace in regular sittings, but did nothing.  Ultimately, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was charged for an amount of Rs.9130/- for Meso Scalp, Rs.30,000/- for Medavita and excluding service tax of Rs.5869.49 with Complimentary Facial (Ann.OP-2).  It is stated that the treatment was commenced by the Opposite Parties and the process was initiated for the treatment within the scheduled timeline.  It is also stated that as per the Treatment Chart, only two sittings were attended by the complainant and he did not came back for further sittings inspite of several reminders and follow-ups and so the complainant himself is at fault (Ann.OP-3). It is further stated that it was the complainant who lingered on the treatment by requesting for some other day many a times.  It is submitted that as per internal process and to provide best services, the OPs book resources in advance and takes a selected number of booking only and did not entertain other customer for similar services until it gets any free slot. It is also submitted that since the complainant had not come for the treatment and the Opposite Parties had also not taken the booking of the similar services from other clients, due to this booking, so it caused business loss to the company.  Denying other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in its reply.

 

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The payment of Rs.44,999/- made by the complainant for availing treatment of hair Loss and Meso Scalp from the OPs is well proved on record vide Ann.C-1.  It is also evident vide Ann.OP-3 (Treatment Chart) that the complainant attended two sittings for the said treatment and thereafter, the record is silent. It is the allegation of the complainant that the OPs failed to manage for the further sittings despite being repeatedly called for. Also alleged that no proper schedule of treatment was provided by the OPs. 

 

7]       Denying the allegations of the complainant, the OPs have claimed that after attending two sittings, the complainant never turned up, even though many a times they approached the complainant and persuaded him to get the further treatment. The Opposite Parties claimed that in order to provide best services to the complainant, as per order booked, they have to arrange for resources in advance to provide the committed services.

         The OPs in their reply although claimed high about services to be provided at their end, badly failed to place on record any of the document revealing the arrangements made for providing the treatment or any document revealing the qualification of the Resource Person to be arranged to provide the treatment to the complainant.  Neither they placed on record any details about the line of treatment to be followed in case of the complainant nor disclosed any treatment schedule to be followed, which draws an adverse inference against them and creates serious doubts about their credibility. In this scenario, we are of the view that it is rightful on the part of the complainant to not only claim for the refund of the amount paid to the Opposite Parties, but also is genuine to claim for the compensation for the harassment suffered by him due to deficient services provided by the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties did not even cajoled themselves to furnish the reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant, which further constrained the complainant to indulge in unwarranted litigation. 

 

8]       In view of above findings, the complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.44,999/- to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment suffered by him due to their deficient act along with litigation cost of Rs.7000/-.

         This order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the Opposite Parties shall also be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from the above relief.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th Sept., 2018                                                             Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER