Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/669/2016

Ms. Vini Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC Health Care Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In person

24 Mar 2017

ORDER

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

==========

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/669/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	19/08/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	24/03/2017

 

 

 

 

 

Vini Sharma, E-903, Vrindavan Gardens, Peermuchalla, Zirakpur, Punjab – 140603.

…………. Complainant.

Vs

 

[1]  VLCC Health Care Limited, through The Centre Head, SCO 43, 1^st Floor, Chandigarh – Panchkula Road, Near V-Mart, Pocket No.1, Manimajra, Chandigarh-160101.

 

[2]  VLCC Health Care Limited, through Ms.Vandana Luthra, M-14, Greater Kailash II, Commercial Complex, New Delhi – 110048, India.

……… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR          PRESIDING MEMBER

                SH. S.K.SARDANA              MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate.
For OPs No.1 & 2	:	Sh. Karanvir Singh Jawandah, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, on 20.08.2014, the Complainant visited the Centre of Opposite Party No.1 for getting her face and neck bleached with the VLCC bleach. However, the Service Assistant advised the Complainant to go for Oxy Bleach – an inhouse product of Opposite Parties. Believing the version of the Service Assistant, the Complainant agreed to get the Oxy Bleach applied on her face. However, immediately, on application of the above stated product, the Complainant felt itching on her face, which ultimately increased to a burning sensation. On complaining, when the Service Assistant removed the bleach, the Complainant observed that there was redness on her face and she also felt severe burning sensation. The Service Assistant applied some Aloe Vera Gel followed by icing on the face. Notwithstanding this, when the Complainant did not get any relief, the Centre Head of Opposite Party No.1 on the advice of an in-house Skin Specialist, sent the Complainant few medicines to be applied on the face and advised the Complainant to stay indoors and apply sunscreen. The Complainant made several visits to the Centre after this, for giving her treatment, but she was left to live in trauma, citing reasons of awaiting due approval from the Area Incharge/ Corporate. Eventually, when the Opposite Parties did not show any inclination of providing treatment to the Complainant, the Complainant on 02.04.2016 visited a Skin Specialist Dr. V.P. Kaushik at New Delhi who advised her a line of treatment. The Complainant had to spent on the fees and the medicines prescribed by the Skin Specialist for repairing the damage to her face and neck. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote to the Opposite Parties umpteen number of times to compensate her for the treatment, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. However, despite having taken sufficient time to file the reply and evidence, the Opposite Parties failed to file the same. Therefore, their defence was struck off on 28.11.2016 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.’, Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013.

 

3.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

4.      It is evident from Annexure-C at Pg.No.47 of the paper-book that the Complainant hired the services of the Opposite Parties in the form of beauty services. As per Para No.6 of the Complaint, on 20.08.2014, the Complainant availed the services of getting her face and neck bleached from Opposite Party No.1. But, during this session, the Complainant felt itching on her face which increased to a burning sensation. After removal of the bleach from the face of the Complainant, she observed that there was redness on her face and she complained of severe burning sensation. Thereafter, the Centre Head of Opposite Party No.1, on the advice of an in-house Skin Specialist, suggested the Complainant for applying few medicines on her face and also instructed her to stay indoors.  The grouse of the Complainant is that due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties she was forced to stay indoors and so missed out various household activities/functions. Annexure-A (colly) are the various Photographs of the Complainant showing the marks/scars due to the bleach cream applied by the Opposite Party No.1. Annexure-E at Pg. No.50 of the paper-book is an e-mail by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties which was sent on 24.8.2014 stating her grievance along with the Pictures and soon on the same day the Opposite Parties replied through the e-mail dated 24.8.2014 itself by sending apologies for the inconvenience which the Complainant experienced due to their services. Through this e-mail, the Opposite Parties assured that all possible guidance from expert Doctor will be provided along with treatment/solution to heal the marks/scars on her face. As per the case of the Complainant and as per the various e-mails placed on record, the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed towards the Complainant’s query for getting the knowledge of the treatment to be followed to get rid of the marks/scars. Again, at Pg. No.52 of the paper-book, there is one e-mail from the Opposite Parties dated 21.5.2016, stating again the apologies for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and also the Opposite Parties assured the Complainant to improve their service delivery as well as managing of appointments as soon as possible. Perusal of these e-mails makes it clear that on both the occasions when the Complainant got burn/scars due to the negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1, as well as during the follow-up procedure for the treatment of the aforesaid sensation the Opposite Parties themselves apologized for their misconduct. It is pertinent to add here that even during the proceedings of the case, the Opposite Parties did not file reply even after getting ample opportunities and therefore, their defence was struck off on 28.11.2016 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case ‘New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.’, Civil Appeal Nos. 10941-10942 of 2013.         

 

5.      The Complainant in the prayer clause of the Complaint has sought a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- spent by her on the treatment till date from the Skin Specialist from New Delhi. In support of her claim, the Complainant has placed on record the bills pertaining to the year 2016 only; whereas, the incident mentioned in the Complaint pertains of the year 2014. At any rate, the Complainant has miserably failed to place on record any affidavit of the treating doctor to show that she was under treatment since 2014 till date. Hence, in the absence of any such proof, the version of the Complainant in this regard is hollow and deserves no merit.

 

6.      Undoubtedly, the Complainant suffered a lot due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties in the form of Scars/Marks on account of application of the product manufactured by the Opposite Parties, then later on not giving proper response to the Complainant for the post burn treatment, non-responding/no-replying to the e-mails of the Complainant for guiding her about the type of treatment to be taken for the relief from the burns and pertinently, not filing the reply to the Complaint despite getting ample opportunities during the proceedings of the present case, proves deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, which certainly caused physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.

 

7.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]    To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment suffered by the complainant;

 

[b]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

 

8.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-.

 

9.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

24^th March, 2017                                         Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

 “Dutt”