IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 187/06 DATED 27-11-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Ratna M.Jain, W/o Mohanlal,“SEASONS’, No.116, D.D.Urs Road, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.M.D.M, Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party The Proprietor,VLCC Health Care Ltd.,Sri Ganesh Arcade, 10th Cross, V.V.Puram, Devaraja Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> (By Sri.L.Santhosh, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 29-06-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 26-07-2006<br /> Date of order : 27-11-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 4 MONTHS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. It is the case of complainant that as she had put on excess weight, she wanted to lose weight. She was enamored by the advertisement given by the Opposite party joint and joined course of Body Therapy, Tummy Tuck etc., She paid Rs.22,040/- and joined the course on 30-06-2005. The Opposite party assured her excellent results within the time frame of the course. The Complainant started attending the course regularly and took treatment for one month, but she did not find any improvement. She has alleged that even the Opposite party and the staff also felt the same. When the Complainant questioned about the assurance and the guarantee given at the time of admission, the Opposite party told her that the package would not work on her and that she should try elsewhere. The Opposite party, also, promised to return the entire amount paid by her and asked her to wait for one month, as the same will have to be processed at their Head office. The Complainant in good faith waited for a month. But even after that period, the Opposite party went on giving one reason or the other and did not refund the amount. The Complainant fed up with the attitude of the Opposite party issued a legal notice on 17-05-06. However, no reply was received from the Opposite party. Hence, she has filed this complaint.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed the version through their counsel. They admit that the Complainant joined the Therapy by paying Rs.22,040/- and in the Therapy consisted of 5 Body Therapy, 5 Body forms, 5 Arm tuck and 10 Tummy Tuck and the package was for loosing 10 kgs of weight over a period of 4 months. The Opposite party has also contended that the complainant was advised to be on a prescribed diet and to attend the sessions without fail. She was also told that the counsellors at the office would advise her from time to time about the Therapy. The Opposite party has also made it clear that the Complainant was told that the fee paid at the time of admission is non-refundable.<br /> 3. The Opposite party has averred that at the start of the Therapy, on 02.07.2005 the complainant weighed 76.3 Kgs and after the 11 sessions that she attended she lost 2 Kgs. Thereafter, according to the Opposite party, the complainant discontinued the Therapy and efforts to contact her over telephone did not yield any result. They say that on enquires they came to know that she had gone out of station and would join the session after her return. Calls made by the diet counsellors to the complainant were returned by the complainant with an answer she was very busy and would come for the session on 2-12-05. Thereafter, they lost touch with the complainant and the complainant did not turn up for the session as promised by her.<br /> 4. The Opposite party has contended that the complainant would have lost the assured weight of 10 Kgs had she only attended all the sessions for a period of 4 months. The Opposite party says that their center is running in the city of Mysore for the last 1 ½ years during which period it has catered to over 1500 satisfied clients. They say that their center has 110 branches in India and in cities like Dubai and London.<br /> 5. The Opposite party has admitted to have received the complainant’s legal notice and claimed that the complainant has to be blamed herself for not losing weight, the Opposite party has prayed for dismissing the complaint.<br /> 6. From the above contentions, the following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> I. Whether the complainant proves that she did not achieve desired results from the Therapy given by the Opposite party?<br /> II. Whether the Opposite party proves that the complainant did not achieve desired result owing to her own fault?<br /> III. What order or relief?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> Point No.I : Negative.<br /> Point No.II : Affirmative.<br /> Point No.III : As per final order.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point nos.I & II:- The fact that the complainant joined the Therapy offered by the Opposite party is not in dispute. The amount paid by the Complainant is also admitted. The only Complaint is that she did not see the result promised by the Opposite party. The Opposite party has filed a number of documents of other clients of it’s center to prove that most of the clients have achieved their goal. From the Client Programme Record pertaining to the complainant, it is seen that the complainant had joined a package which consisted of losing 10 Kgs of body weight along with 5 body Therapy, 5 Body form, 5 Arm tuck and 10 Tummy tuck. It also included 5 free sessions of body B.C. At the time of joining the Therapy, she weighed 76.3 Kgs. Between 2-07-05 and 22-07-05 the weight has come down by 350 gms. It is apparent from the said Client Programme record that she stopped attending the sessions after 22-07-05 and went to the centre only on 2-12-05. Thereafter, she never went there again. There is a note in the “Follow-up record” which shows that the Opposite party tried to contact her on 21-04-06 and was informed that she had gone to Ahamadabad and would be returning only on 29-05-06. The complainant has written a letter to the Opposite party on 18-04-06 wherein she has mentioned about her demand for refund of the money paid by her. She also talks of some problems she developed after attending the sessions. From the medical history noted in the client programme record the only medication she was taking antidepressant tablets. She has informed this fact to the Opposite party and it has been noted in the client programme record that the complainant did not experience any difficulty during the sessions. It is also clear that she had discussed her allergy and ramoitoidy arthritics problems with the Physiotherapist in the center. He has opined that the complainant is fit to take all sessions and he also advised her to walk for 15 minutes daily. <br /> 9. The complainant has produced a few medical prescriptions of the Doctors, she visited at Ahmadabad and Mysore to take treatment. These medical prescriptions are given by Psychiatrists. In any case she had disclosed to the Opposite party that she was on antidepressants. Hence these medical prescriptions are not significant and will not help the cause of the complainant. Hence, the contention that she developed medical problems after attending the sessions are not tenable.<br /> 10. It is evident from the client programme record that she has attended the sessions for only 20 days as against it’s tenure of 4 months. The complainant cannot expect miraculous results over night. She has not given any acceptable reason for discontinuing the sessions. As per the terms and conditions of the programme, the money paid by the complainant is not refundable, though, the period of the Therapy can be extended, if for some reason the same cannot be completed within the period fixed by the Opposite party. In view of these facts, we have to conclude that the complainant has not made out a case that she did not get the desired result from the Therapy given by the Opposite party. She has also failed to prove that she developed any complications from the Therapy she took for 20 days. In view of these facts, we answer point I in the negative and point II in the affirmative.<br /> 11. The Opposite party has filed a number of documents of their clients to show how the clients who attended the sessions regularly achieved the desired results. These are irrelevant for the case on and, hence require no discussion. We would also like to mention here that evidently some kind of discussion between the complainant and the Opposite party took place after she discontinued the course. This is apparent from the note found in the client programme record, the letter of the complainant dated 18-04-06 and the letter of the Opposite party to this Forum. Written by the centre Manager seeking extension of time for settlement. Further, the amount paid by the complainant is not meager. <br /> 12. In view of the above facts, and circumstances we find it just and proper to give an opportunity to both parties for redressal of their grievances by holding if the complainant is interested in continuing the therapy, the opponent shall give her an opportunity by readmitting her to the session and Therapy for the money already paid in order to achieve desired results. If the complainant do not get the desired results as propagated and offered by the Opposite party then the complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint in case if she finds that the opponent has indulged in Unfair practice. With these views, we answer the points raised for consideration holding that the result could not be achieved because of non-completion of the term. Hence we proceed to pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. If the complainant desired to get herself readmitted to the Therapy session with the opponent, the opponent shall without insisting upon any extra payment readmit the complainant and complete the balance sessions as per the schedule and as offered.<br /> 3. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 27th November 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> President Member<br /> <br />