Date of Filing:22.07.2009<br /> Date of Order:19.03.2010<br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 19th DAY OF MARCH 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1133 OF 2008 <br /> <br /> Anitha Rachel Bartholomew<br /> D/o Peter, A/a 22 yrs,<br /> R/o Janodaya working Women’s Hostel<br /> No.2/1, 80 ft road, 7th Block,<br /> Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095.<br /> Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 01. VLCC Health Care Ltd.,<br /> No.541, 16th Main, 3rd Block<br /> Koramangala, Bangalore - 095<br /> <br /> 02. Dr.Pratiksha<br /> <br /> 03. Geetha Tiwari<br /> <br /> Both are employees of VLCC Health<br /> Care Ltd., No.541, 16th Main, 3rd Block<br /> Koramangala, Bangalore – 95.<br /> <br /> 04. VLCC Health Care Ltd., <br /> Corporate Office, No.64, HSIDC<br /> Sector – 18 Marathi Industrial area,<br /> Gurgaon, Haryana State – 122 002<br /> Opposite Parties <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant had approached Opposite Parties to take treatment for her dandruff problem. The Opposite Parties have fixed the price for curing the dandruff is at Rs.7,000/-. Further the Opposite Parties have forced the complainant to undergo several other treatments. The Opposite Parties have withdrawn Rs.1,40,427/- even though the credit limit is Rs.1,32,000/-. The complainant paid the overdue amount of Rs.6,600/- with interest to CITI Bank. The complainant submits that she never went for any treatment other than dandruff which even after treatment was not cured. The Opposite Parties have withdrawn Rs.2,210/- on 10/03/2008, Rs.11,012/- on 14/03/2008 and Rs.23,877/- on 31/03/2008 in the name of different packages for health care. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,75,536/- has been taken by the complainant. The complainant further submits that on 28/02/2008 the Opposite Parties have forced her to give four cheques each amounting to Rs.23,877/-. In spite of repeated request, the Opposite Parties on one or the other pretext had been dodging to return the cheques. The complainant further submits that he Opposite Parties have taken total amount of Rs.2,00,413/-. The complainant suffered from Anemia due to ill-advise of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have advised the complainant not to take meals for losing weight even though the complainant is already underweight. Due to ill advise the complainant has to take treatment at Sagar Apollo Hospital for shortness of breath and anxiety. The complainant put to heavy financial loss. The Opposite Parties refused to return the amount. Due to unnecessary extortion of heavy amount by the Opposite Party the complainant facing critical financial problem. The notice was issued on 11/04/2008 demanding for return of cheques and the amount, the Opposite Party avoided to take legal notice. Hence, the complaint for direction to Opposite Party to return the amount of Rs.2,02,403/- and Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and to return three original cheques. <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed defence version stating that, the complainant approached for various beauty treatments including treatment of dandruff. The Opposite Party offered several packages to the complainant. The complainant on her own free will and volition chose the packages and paid the required amount through her credit card. Monies cannot be withdrawn from a credit card unless the credit card owner signs on the charge sheet, which the complainant has done. The Opposite Parties submit that once money is deposited, it is not refundable. However, such monies can be adjusted towards another package after deduction of 20% of the amount paid. The Opposite Parties further submit that whatever amount withdrawn is as per the instructions and consent of the complainant. The complainant had come for treatment on various dates. Become happy with the service of Opposite Party, the complainant went for additional new package. The complainant had approached the Opposite Party for various beauty treatments including treatment for dandruff. The complainant voluntarily and without any coercion opted for some of the packages and paid the amounts due through her credit card. The Opposite Parties further submit that they have no knowledge whatsoever about the complainants credit limit. The Opposite Parties submit that they denies it as false that the complainant was not cured of the dandruff and instead she suffered hair loss and that her hair has become thin. The Opposite Parties submit that the complainant undergone various treatments by attending treatment sessions at the Opposite Party’s office on various dates. The Opposite Parties denied that the complainant has given four cheques each amounting to Rs.23,877/-. The Opposite Parties further submit that it is not the case of the complainant that the Opposite Party has wrongly encashed them. The Opposite Parties denied that except dandruff treatment the complainant has not undergone for any other treatment. The complainant having opted for packages cannot go back on what she has agreed upon. Hence, the Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.<br /> 4. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence. The complainant has filed some documents whereas on behalf of the Opposite Parties no documents are produced. Arguments are heard.<br /> 5. The points for consideration are:- <br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?<br /> <br /> 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid by her, if so what would be the quantum of amount i.e. liable to be refunded to the complainant?<br /> <br /> 3) What relief and order:- <br /> <br /> <br /> 6. My finds to the above points is as under:-<br /> Point No(1) : In the Affirmative<br /> Pont No(2i) : In the Affirmative<br /> Point No(3) : As per final order<br /> for the following:-<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> Point Nos. 1 to 3:- <br /> 7. The complainant had dandruff problem. Therefore she approached the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had advised the complainant to go for various packages. The complainant in all has paid a total amount of Rs.1,78,526/- to the Opposite Party on various dates through her credit card. The complainant has produced the Bank statement to show payments made by her. The Opposite Party had admitted the payments made by the complainant. There is no dispute whatsoever in respect of the amount received by the Opposite Party through credit card of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she has not taken any treatment from the Opposite Party except for dandruff. The amount was paid to the Opposite Party for various packages likeGlycolic Pe, B Line Trea, Laser Hair, Weight loss, Body Therapy, Body Firmer, Tummy Tuck, Thigh Tuck, Body Contow etc. The case of the complainant is that she has not taken any treatment from the Opposite Party except treatment for dandruff. Therefore she wants refund of the amount by deducting some amount towards dandruff treatment. The learned Advocate for the complainant fairly submitted that the Opposite Party may deduct some reasonable amount towards dandruff treatment and shall refund the amount which had been received from the complainant. <br /> 8. The Opposite Party in the version has not specified the various treatments given to the complainant. The Opposite Party never gave the treatment schedule or any time table to show that really various treatments have been given to the complainant. The Opposite Party has not produced any single document like attendance register of the complainant, treatment sessions schedule etc. There is no iota of evidence to show and establish that the various treatments promised had been given to the complainant. The case put up by the complainant that she has not taken any treatment and packages or health care treatment except dandruff treatment shall have to be accepted as true and correct. The Opposite Party even has not produced the brochure or any literature of various treatments which are available in their institutions. By the defence version, it is clear that the Opposite Party is not specific in the defence version. No particulars of treatment undergone by the complainant, is mentioned in the defence version. The Opposite Party has not come forward to establish and prove the fact that various health care treatments are given to the complainant. In the absence of any evidence or proof the case put up by the complainant and the assertions made by her shall have to be accepted as true and correct. It is shocking to know that a large amount has been taken from the complainant through her credit card by the Opposite Party without giving any service to the complainant except treatment for dandruff. This type extraction of money from the innocent customers is nothing but unfair trade practice. The Opposite Parties in this case have played unfair method or practice in extracting large amount from the complainant under the guise of giving so-many health care packages. But none of the health care packages have been given to the complainant. The amount received from the complainant is nothing but exploitation. The complainant having admitted fairly that the Opposite Party has given treatment for dandruff though it is cured or not it is immaterial, but having received the treatment for dandruff, it is just, reasonable and fair to direct the Opposite Party to take Rs.20,000/- for the said treatment out of the total amount received from the complainant. The complainant in all has paid Rs.1,78,526/- and this amount is highly disproportionate amount compared to the treatment given to the complainant for dandruff. Therefore, the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service by extracting more money from the complainant without giving any service. Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable to order the Opposite Parties to refund the excess amount. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of consumers. The complainant herein being a Consumer under the Act, her interest requires to be protected by granting relief to her. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just, fair and reasonable to direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.1,58,526/- to the complainant out of amount received by her. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 1) The complaint is ALLOWED.<br /> 2) The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to refund Rs.1,58,526/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 3) In the vent of non compliance of the order within 30 days, the said amount carries interest at 6% Per Annum from the date of this order till payment/realization.<br /> 4) Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 5) Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />