Haryana

StateCommission

A/536/2018

ROHIT SAHU - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC HEALTH CARE LTD AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

NEERAJ GOEL

25 Sep 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                First Appeal No.           :         536 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution        :         26.04.2018

                                                Date of Decision                   :         25.09.2018

 

Sh. Rohit Sahu S/o Sh. S.P. Sahu, R/o C-752, 1^st Floor, JVTS Garden, Chatterpur, Delhi -76.

 

          …… Appellant.

 

Versus

 

1. VLCC Health Care Limited, Corporate Office 64, HSIDC Sector-18, Maruti Indl. Area, Gurgaon, Haryana-122015, through its Head of Corporate Office.
2. Ms. Babita Verma, VLCC Health Care Limited, A-14/23, DLF, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

……. Respondents

 

CORAM:             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Presiding Member.

 

Present:              Mr. Neeraj Goel, counsel for the appellant.

                             Mr. Varun Kumar Mittal, counsel for respondents.

                            

O R D E R

 

DIWAN SINGH CHAUHAN, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

                             The present appeal has been decided by me in view of the order passed by Hon’ble President of the State Commission conveyed to me vide Endst. No. 195 dated 25.01.2018 whereby I have been authorized to decide the cases singly in Additional Bench-II.

                             This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by complainant against the OPs was allowed and following directions were given to the Opposite parties:-

“However, keeping in view the circumstances of the case and keeping in view the latter from OPs that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was to be refunded on account of non attending the remaining programme and as such the OPs are directed to refund the said amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and further to pay a sum of Rs.2100/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.”          

                             The brief facts of the case are that complainant visited the OPs for the purpose of reducing his fat on the stomach and face. OP No. 2 assured the complainant to do the needful and gave the programme 10 Terbo + 5 face Duo + 5 face firming programme without conducting any examination and the complainant deposited required amount and joint the programme but no result was shown and the complainant took up the issue with the OPs several times but in vain. Lateron OP No.2 sent the complainant to Dr. Renu who disclosed that the complainant was suggested to wrong treatment and as such the treatment was no showing any result. Complainant requested the OPs to return the money and ultimately OPs agreed to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

                             Upon notice OPs filed written statement and contented that OPs have trained staff and expert at its centre and the programme given to the customers are based upon scientific research and experience. OPs gave the programme to the complainant but no assurance was given and the reduction of weight depends upon metabolism and other factors. Complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement which was signed by the complainant after understanding the contents thereof as well as contents of the programme. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

                             Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims.

                             On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted relief as noticed in the opening para of this order.

                             Aggrieved with the impugned order, appellant-complainant has come up in appeal.  Hence this appeal.

                             I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file thoroughly.

                             The counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the respondents provide the appellant with a wrong treatment, which can be injurious to his health. The counsel for the appellant further contended that District Forum awarded meager amount on account of compensation and prayed that compensation be enhanced by allowing the appeal of the appellant.

                             On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent contended that District Consumer Forum wrongly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal/complaint of the appellant.

                             I have considered the respective submission of the parties and have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case evidence adduced on record by both the parties.  The complainant attended the full programme as per Annexure-A and the reduction in weight depends upon several factors i.e. diet, exercise, life style etc. Therefore, there is nothing on the file that the programme to which the complainant was subjected was in any way not suitable.

In this view of the matter I am of the considered view that there is no force in the appeal of the appellant.  The District Forum has adequately compensated the complainant and no cause for interference is made out. Hence the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.

 

Announced                                                                                 Diwan Singh Chauhan,

25.09.2018                                                                                       Presiding Member

                                                                                                    Addl. Bench-IInd