Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/334/2017

Shailja Thakur - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC Wellness Centre - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	334 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	12.04.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	20.09.2017

 

 

 

 

Shailja Thakur, Flat No.206, Tulip Block, Amravati Enclave, P.O. Chandimandir, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana.    

                               …..Complainant

Versus

VLCC Wellness Centre, SCO 43, First Floor, Plocket-1, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                          ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

 

Argued by :     Complainant in person.

                Sh.Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for OP.

 

  

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant visited the Opposite Party for treatment of Melasma (facial pigmentation) and paid Rs.18,000/- which included Three Glycolic Acid peels, three Hydra Facials and One Inno Peel.  It is averred that on the asking of the Opposite Party that on payment of Rs.2000/- more, I would get two extra Glycolic Acid peels, over and above the 3 Glycolic Acid Peels, the complainant paid another amount of Rs.2000/-.  However, the Opposite Party did not issue any bill despite repeated requests made by the complainant. 

         It is averred that on 18.6.2016, the complainant had first Glycolic Acid peel, followed by a facial some days later and then an Inno peel after another few days.  It is also averred that the doctor of Opposite Party told her that since there was no improvement in pigmentation at all after the two peels, so she discontinued the Glycolic Acid peel and shift her to Trichloroacetic (TCA) peels.  It is stated that the first TCA peel was a low strength peel and made no impact on the pigmentation of the complainant, so a couple of weeks later i.e. on 8.9.2016, the second TCA Peel was done and this was a higher strength TCA Peel.  It is also stated that this higher strength peel burnt the skin of the complainant, but on the assurance of the doctor of the Opposite Party that the burnt skin would peel off completely in about a week’s time and there was nothing to worry about, so she bear with it.  It is further stated that when the burnt skin of the complainant peeled off completely after about 10 days from the sitting, the pigmentation began to darken and kept on darker & darker with each passing day and became darker then before she took the treatment with Opposite Party.  It is also that this was a case of Post-Inflammatory-Hyperpigmentation as a side effect of the use of a higher strength TCA peel.

         It is pleaded that the Post-Inflammatory-Hyperpigmentation became extremely bad and stepping out of the home with a face looking horrible due to deep, dark marks left behind by peel burns was very embarrassing.  It is also pleaded that being deeply disappointed with the outcome of the treatment given by the Opposite Party, the complainant discontinued with the treatment of Opposite Party and requested the Opposite Party for refund of the fee, which was flatly refused by it.  It is further pleaded that though the Opposite Party calculated the refund of the complainant to be Rs.7590/- but refused to pay the same on the ground that it was company policy not to give refunds. Then, the complainant brought this matter with the notice of Opposite Party Company by sending e-mail, whereupon Ms.Saloni Kapoor, Area Head of the Opposite Party Company offer to go for another skin lightening treatments called Glutathione, but complainant refused for the same. However, the Opposite Party did not send any refund to the complainant despite repeated requests and SMS sent to it.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply stating that the complainant was given due treatment against the package booked by her and as per clause 3 (c) of the Terms and Conditions duly signed by the complainant, the payments made are non-refundable and the complainant do sign a declaration to that effect. It is also stated that it was made clear to the complainant that result of the cosmetic treatments is not guaranteed and same depends on various factors including strict adherence to the advice.  It is further stated that the Opposite Party provided best treatment as per practice and advise of doctors and hence there is no deficiency in service. It is submitted that the complainant was a case of recalcitrant melisma (the complainant having undergone laser treatment at another clinic with zero results) and the only options available at the Opposite Party centre was chemical peels, which were suggested to the complainant during the counselling session.  It is also submitted that Glutathione was later introduced as a treatment option and was suggested to the complainant, which was refused.  It is further submitted that Melasma has a high relapse rate and most clients have to continue treatment/maintenance for a long period of time and the initial package was suggested with best of intentions with hopes of a successful outcome, however, no guarantees were given nor could be given.  It is stated that the complainant after getting the treatment, failed to take post care precautions to get desired results which include sun screen every 4 hours and covering the face with a scarf in sunlight hours.  It is also stated that the complainant concealed the material facts from the Opposite Party that she had a family history of melasma and therefore, she would have to continue treatment for a longer period of time and alter the treatment course to include TCA peels. It is submitted that the complainant has concealed that she has also filed another case against Aura Skin Institute which shows that she is a habitual litigant. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by OP.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Going through the facts mentioned in the complaint as well as in the reply and considering the submissions made in the arguments by both the parties, it is concluded that the complainant is not satisfied with the treatment imparted by the Opposite Party for Melasma (facial pigmentation), as suffered by the complainant. It is the allegation of the complainant that the peels applied for by the Opposite Party during the course of treatment badly affected on her skin and made it worsen then before. 

 

7]       On the other hand, the Opposite Party in its reply verbally denied the allegations of the complainant and forcefully contended that the complainant was given the best of the treatment available for the Melasma (facial pigmentation) and due to her own negligence, the optimum results could not be produced as desired.  The Opposite Party claimed that the complainant did not care for the instructions to be followed in its true terms.  The Opposite Party claimed that they offered the complainant to undergo Glutathione treatment, but she herself refused for the same and thus there is no deficiency on their part, as alleged by the complainant.  They further added that the complainant also concealed the fact that she had family history of Melasma  and in such like cases only the regular and long lasting treatment is helpful and not the short time treatment is that effective. 

 

8]       It is gathered that the complainant refused to undergo the ‘Glutathione’ treatment suggested by the Opposite Party after the failure of the higher strength TCA peel applied on the face of the complainant. The suggestion for ‘Glutathione’ treatment itself corroborates the truthfulness of the facts narrated by the complainant in her complaint that the usage of higher strength TCA Peel worsen the facial condition of the complainant.  Since the issues in regards to the skin are sensitive in nature and that too when we talk about the facial skin, in that cases one cannot be forced to subject himself or herself to be experimented for one treatment or the other. We feel that as the application of the previous peel applied on the fact of the complainant worsened her skin, so she was right in refusing for the further treatment suggested by the OPs.

 

9]       We are of the view that the treatment for the skin problem is not to be given by any hit & trial method, rather it needs extra care and caution while treatment is to be given.  It is a prudent obligation of the Opposite Party firstly to thoroughly investigate and adjudge the sensitivity of the skin type of a person before imparting any treatment. 

 

10]      The Opposite Party has not placed on record any of the report, which shows that before imparting the treatment to the complainant, she was thoroughly examined & investigated.  The Opposite Party has not even placed on record the so called DNA Test report for which they have charged an amount of Rs.1500/- from the complainant (Ex.OP/1).  It is an admitted fact that the complainant had not utilized her whole package of facial treatment for the reason that she suffered the side effects of application of higher strength TCA peel.

 

11]      We feel that the demand of the complainant for the balance amount, which remained unused is quite genuine as one cannot be forced to be subject for the experiment when once it is experienced in negative terms.  We do feel that there is no yardstick to measure the results produced by the application of the products during the course of treatment, but at the same time it is wise to discontinue the application of the same, in case it turned out to be not suitable to the skin type.  

 

12]      It is the plea of the OP that the complainant concealed the factum that she has a family history of melasma as her mother is also suffering from the same problem.  We disagree with the contention of Opposite Party as it was their duty to enquire about the genetic factor responsible for melasma during the so called counselling session.     

 

13]      Since no breakup of amount/bill paid to the Opposite Party is made available on the file by the complainant as well by the OP, so it is not clear as to how much amount is to be refunded or remained as balance towards the complainant. Therefore, we deem it proper to grant lumpsum compensation amount to the complainant for the loss and harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficient services rendered by the Opposite Party. 

 

14]      In view of the above findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in rendering proper service on the part of the Opposite Party is proved and therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Party with following directions:-

a)  To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the parts of Opposite Party.

b)  To pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/-

 

         This order shall be complied with by Opposite Party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing this complaint till realization, apart from paying litigation cost. 

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

Announced

20^th September, 2017            

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

                                                  Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER