Delhi

South Delhi

CC/134/2016

JASMINE KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC Health Care Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No. 134/16

Smt. Jasmine Kaur

W/o Sh. Gagandeep Bahadur Singh

Through its attorney

Sh. Parvesh Bahadur Singh

R/o B-3/62 Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi-110029

 

….Complainant

Versus

 

1. VLCC Health Care Ltd

Through its Manager

Ms. Romi Hongsha

Safdarjung Enclave

B-4/52, Safdarjung Enclave,

New Delhi-110029

 

2. VLCC Health Care Ltd

Having its Corporate Office

64, HSIDC

Sector 18,

Maruti Industrial Area, Gurgaon -122015,

Haryana (India )

Through Managing Director

….Opposite Parties

    

 Date of Institution    : 10.05.2016      

 Date of Order            : 18.01.2023      

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking Rs.20,00,000 as compensation on account of damaged hair, expected treatment for restoring and repairing damaged hair, violation of fundamental religious tenets causing mental pain and agony with pendentelite and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum till realization. The OP in this case is VLCC Healthcare limited at two of their addresses.

 

1. It is stated by the Complainant that she is a resident of USA and had come for vacation to India on January 23^rd, 2016 for her husband's nephew’s first birthday which was to be a grand celebration.

 

2. It is stated by the Complainant that she utilised the OP services for hair wash with conditioning on the morning of 30th January, 2016. The employee of the OP without first combing the Complainant’s hair started washing it, using hotel and cold water alternatively. It is stated by the Complainant that after 45 minutes, the employee wrapped her hair in a towel and began to comb through her hair. It is then that the Complainant realised that her hair was tangled in the huge ball of knots. It is further stated that since he could not detangle the Complainant’s hair for quite some time, her mother in law who is waiting in the lobby also walked in and was in a shock to see what the employee had done to her hair.

 

3. At that juncture, another employee walked in to help with the situation, with the pick comb tried to detangle the Complainant here but instead she started cutting off the knotted hair. This act of the employee hurt the religious sentiments of the Complainant as she is a Sikh by religion and cutting of hair is prohibited according to the tenets of Sikhism. Seeing this, the OP apologised and promised disciplinary action against both the employees. The OP had at that time promised the Complainant that the said employees would be immediately dismissed from service.

 

4. It is further stated that later when the Complainant wanted to know the names of the employees who attended to the Complainant, the OP refused to give the names and called the Complainant for a meeting. The Complainant further states that when she went for the meeting, she was surprised to see the same person  present and working in the salon.

 

5. The hair stylist who was present in the meeting said that this could have been avoided by using detangling serum and it is then that the Complainant realised that untrained staff was employed by the OP. It is further stated by the Complainant that in this meeting the team of OP pleaded with the Complainant and not to take any legal action against the organization and offered her monetary compensation to suppress the matter.

 

6. Another meeting took place in the office of OP-2 wherein the Complainant expected a resolution however, they were giving an option wherein they said they would take action to fix and better trained as employees and referred to the incident as ‘case study’. The officials were not apologetic and denied their liability and negligence.

 

7. It is stated by the Complainant that the staff of the OP is not following safety codes and have failed to provide minimum safety precautions and are guilty of using certain chemicals which resulted in substantial damage to the hair of the Complainant and breaking of the hair.

 

8. It is said that the Complainant has not only suffered physical pain but also psychological trauma through an unwanted change in Complainant’s appearance which has led to a loss of self-esteem. It is stated that it had a huge impact on her life especially because her fundamental religious ethics were violated.  It is stated that because of this incident, the Complainant has to avoid social gatherings and there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and that the OP are guilty of carelessness and negligence. It is stated that the OP did not carry out their duties as per standards which is required to be maintained and which has resulted in the irreparable loss and injury to the Complainant.

 

9. On the other hand, the OP in its reply have stated that the complaint is false, incorrect, baseless and therefore denied. It is stated that the complaint is just an afterthought and has been instituted for the purpose of harassment of OP. It is stated that the Complainant is not a consumer as she has not paid any consideration for the services. An objection has also been raised to the power of attorney holder through whom the Complainant has filed the present complaint. It is also stated that the signature on the complaint is forged. It is also stated by the OP that this Commission does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case as the services which were rendered to the Complainant were given at Safdarjung centre.

 

 

10. It is stated that there is no legal right which has accrued to the Complainant to approach this Commission and that the Complainant has raised disputable questions or fact which can only be adjudicated by leading evidence therefore, this complaint requires a detailed trial and sufficient evidence for which the present Commission is not the appropriate forum.

 

11. The OP has denied that the Complainant was not given a proper head wash or was given in a negligent or unprofessional manner. It is also denied by them that any compensatory measure or offered was made to the complaint. It is submitted that it is normal and generally known that hair invariably falls during hair wash. It is stated that the services were provided in most professional manner with all safety procedures and that no chemicals were used which resulted in damage to the Complainants hair. The OP has further denied that the Complainant felt any pain or psychological trauma or that there has been any change in the Complainant’s appearance. It is also denied by them that any religious ethics of the Complainant has been violated, the hair fall it is said, is absolutely normal and cannot be related to any religious issue. The OPs have further denied that the Complainant has suffered any depression, disfigurement, mental agony or that there is any cause of action in favour of the complaint.

 

The Complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit which includes her, mother in law’s and brother in law’s statement who have reiterated the case of the Complainant. OP-1 and OP- 2 have also filed their evidence. Both the Complainant as well as the OPs have filed their respective written arguments.

 

This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. The Complainant has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. J J Merchant vs Srinath Chaturvedi in the year 2002.

 

After considering the preliminary objections raised by the OP this Commission is of the view that this Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to try the present complaint as Safdarjung Centre falls within this jurisdiction. As far as the allegation of the signature of the Complainant on the complaint being forged is concerned, it has no force as it has not been supported by any shred of proof. Similarly, the contention that the Complainant is not a consumer is without any basis and proof and therefore, rejected.

 

The OP has also stated that the complaint is without any basis and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP however, this Commission is of the view that once a person choses to visit a salon for services and that too, a reputed one, some minimum standard of services is a normally expected. In this case, the Complainant had availed of the services of the reputed salon of the OP, of which the mother in law of the Complainant was a patron. The Complainant went for a hair wash which for her turned out to be no less than a nightmare. It is expected when a person goes for a hair wash that it would be different from the one done at home and that the person’s hair would be combed prior to the wash and after the wash, the hair would be dried in a manner that no hurt would be caused to the person but in this case even after knowing that the Complainant has long hair, it was not combed which then resulted in entangling of hair and which further resulted in hair loss when the wet hair was being combed. Thereafter in a bid to detangle the hair, the OPs caused more loss to the hair of the Complainant and the photographs filed by the Complainant bear witness to the same. To this extent, the OPs were deficient in their services.

 

Though the Complainant has said that her religious sentiments were hurt as her hairs were got cut by the staff of the Complainant but this statement has not been corroborated by her mother in law or brother in law in their statements filed in evidence. Therefore, this Commission is of the view that justice would be done if the OP 1 and OP-2 are directed to pay to the Complainant sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay interest @ 5% p.a on the said amount till realisation.

 

File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.