Meenu Gupta wife of Sh. Rajneesh Gupta Advocate, resident of House no.6855/1, Street No.1, Naveen Nagar, Jassian Road, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. M/s Jannat Beauty Health World, Kitchlu Nagar Market, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/partner Mr. Vicky Sharma.



2. Mr. Vicky Sharma, Proprietor/partner of M/s Jannat Beauty health World, Kitchlu Nagar market, Ludhiana.

(Opposite Parties)

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT.

1. As per allegations of the complainant in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, opposite party no.2 is running and operating a Beauty and Health Centre in the name and style of opposite party no.1. They had been advertising through pamphlets assuring general public to slim and trim their bodies by loosing weight and had been offering on such premises, packages to the customers. Attracted by such advertisements, complainant approached opposite party on 25.5.2007 and they assured that she certainly would loose 20 kg. weight, in case their health clinic is joined by her.

As their clinic was equipped with world class fittings, fixtures and appliances and staff was well trained, qualified to provide best quality service and they were also authorised to operate electrical and electronics equipment fittings/gadgets for the purpose of exercises. Complainant got allured by such assurances and opted for one year unlimited weight loss package called “Menu slim” for Rs.11,000/- and paid Rs.3500/- vide receipt dated 25.5.2007 and Rs.7500/- vide receipt dated 29.5.2007. Opposite party declared and promised that she would loss 20 Kg. weight. Opposite party made record of weight of the complainant for preparing a chart. On 29.5.2007 she joined the clinic and her weight was recorded as 92.70Kg.

Training as directed by staff of the opposite party and dietician were undertaken. But by the end of Jan. 2008, complainant reported to opposite party that she had been following instructions of their clinic, doing exercises regularly, but there was no weight loss, even after 8 months of joining the clinic. She was assured of positive result by March-April 2008. But despite it, till 31.3.2008, there was no weight loss of the complainant. On 5.4.2008, a belt consisting of electric pads was wrapped on her right arm in order to provide vibration. But while doing so, she suffered severe electric shock on account of defective electric belt, wrapped on her right arm. Therefore, she became unconscious.

After gaining consciousness, she immediately rang up to her husband, who rushed to clinic of opposite party along with his friends Sh. Pankaj Sharda and Pankaj Sood. They immediately shifted her to DMC& H, Ludhiana where was got treated and discharged after three hours. ECG was conducted. She then was advised rest for 10 days due to receipt of electric shock, which had affected her nerves and mental condition. Electric shock was received by the complainant due to defective electric belt applied/wrapped on the right arm of the complainant, which has caused mental tension and agony to her. Consequently in this complaint has sought direction for refund of Rs.11,000/- charged by the opposite party along with Rs. 10,000/- spent on medical expenses, Rs.1,50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/- as legal expenses.

2. opposite parties contested the complaint by denying all averments of the complaint in totality. They averred that when complainant joined the clinic, was already suffering from various diseases like hypertension, diabetes etc. She concealed such diseases from them and never cared to follow advise given by the trainer and instructors of the opposite party. She even did not attend the class regularly. Hence, there is no fault on their part. No assurance was given to the complainant qua weight loss. She has levelled false allegations.

No promise was made to the complainant regarding weight loss upto 20 kg. by joining their clinic nor any package was offered to the complainant, neither she paid Rs.11,000/- as alleged. Also denied that chart regarding weight of the complainant was made and she weighed in the beginning of joining the clinic as 92.70-Kg. Also denied that she ever after 8 months or thereafter made complaint of not loosing the weight. Also they have refuted receiving electric shock on 5.4.2008 on account of defective electric pad wrapped on her right arm. Further denied that she was taken to hospital by her husband and his friends and spent any amount on treatment in the hospital. In totality, claim of the complainant is denied.

3. In order to prove their respective contentions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by ld. counsel for parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Complainant in support of her claim has relied on own affidavit Ex.CW1/A as well as affidavit Ex.CW2/A of Sh. Pankaj Sood friend of her husband, who on 5.4.2008 accompanied by husband of the complainant went to clinic of the opposite party, after receipt of telephone call from her. In addition, she has also relied on receipt Ex.C.1 dated 25.5.2007 for payment of Rs.3500/- out of total amount of Rs.11,000/- for joining “Menu slim” course of the opposite party. Balance Rs.7500/- was paid vide receipt Ex.C2 dated 29.5.2007.

However, opposite party in totality has denied these receipts. But the receipts are on the letter head pad of opposite party. So, it is clearly established that Rs.11,000/- were charged by the opposite party from the complainant through these receipts. On her joining course “Menu slim” for one year, opposite party guaranteed unlimited weight loss and not less than 20 Kg. This guarantee of 20 Kg. weight loss is recorded on the receipt Ex.C.1. So, defence of the opposite party that they never guaranteed any such weight loss to the complainant is not only false, but also stand belied from receipt Ex.C.1. This leads us to a conclusion that Rs.11,000/- for joining “Menu slim” course was realized by the opposite party from the complainant and the opposite party had guaranteed minimum weight loss of 20 Kg. in a course of one year.

6. As per averments on oath of the complainant, she attended course regularly, followed instructions of the instructors of opposite party, did exercises as recommended, but there was no weight loss. Record of her weight was recorded on a chart by the opposite party, which they withheld from the Fora. We consequently, believe the version of the complainant that when joined the course her weight was taken, which was 92.70Kg. and they assured weight loss of 20 Kg. in one year. A chart so maintained qua weight of the complainant by opposite party has not seen the light of the day.

Therefore we have no hesitation to believe affidavit of the complainant that even after 8 months and thereafter, there was no weight loss and such assertions on the part of opposite party proved to be false in order to attract the customer by misleading advertisements and propaganda. By such misleading propaganda, opposite party certainly in circumstances would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice by giving false promises to customers that would loose weight upto certain limits. This they did so to get enrolment by customers, but failed to fulfill the promises. So, on this account, opposite parties would be negligent in rendering services to their customers.

7. Complainant while undergoing course with the opposite party fell electric shock on 5.4.2008 due to wrapping of defective electric pads on her right arm. She fell unconscious and after gaining consciousness telephoned her husband who with his friends Sh. Pankaj Sood and Pankaj Sharda rushed to clinic of opposite party. Then they removed the complainant to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana where was treated for about 3 hours and ECG was also taken to see any effect on heart due to electric shock. Ex.C.3 is copy of the ECG dated 5.4.2008. It was thereafter that the complainant served legal notice Ex.C.4 on opposite party and posted the same vide postal receipt Ex.C.5 claiming compensation and damages, but it remained unanswered.

8. Complainant has also brought on record the laboratory reports Ex.C.6 to C8 dated 11.8.2006, 22.9.20-08 and 13.3.2009 respectively. But we see no relevancy of these laboratory reports with the incident on 5.4.2008.

9. Opposite party no.2 vide his affidavit Ex.RW1/A has denied all allegations of the complainant. In support also filed affidavit RW2 of his trainer Smt. Jagjit kaur . As per affidavit of Smt. Jagjit Kaur complainant at the time of taking admission in the clinic was suffering from various diseases like diabetes and hypertension. But no medical record in support of such plea is placed on the record, neither we have any material to conclude that how the trainer of the opposite party came to know of such diseases of the complainant. Hence, we do no rely thereon.

10. It is as such apparent that while providing training to the complainant, electric pads which were defective were wrapped on right arm of the complainant and due to such defective electric pads, shock was caused to the complainant leading to her unconsciousness and then was forced to take treatment in DMC& Hospital, Ludhiana. Electric shock so suffered by her must have caused agony, tension and sufferance not only to her but to her husband as well, who had rushed on receipt of telephone call from the complainant to the said clinic of the opposite party. This happened due to negligence of the opposite party.

11. Sum and substance of the discussions consequently is that the complainant is able to prove that opposite parties resorted to unfair trade practice by giving false promise and assurance of loosing 20 Kg. weight in one year and she attended the course of opposite party for eight months and more, but did not loose any eight. The assurances were false, to promote the business by resorting to unfair trade practice. Consequently opposite parties were negligent while providing training to the complainant, who suffered electric shock. On account of such deficiencies, complaint deserves to be allowed.

12. Hence, by allowing the complaint, we order opposite parties to refund charges of Rs.11,000/- taken from the complainant and also to pay her compensation of Rs. 5000/-(Rs. Five Thousands only) and litigation cost of Rs.2000/-(Rs. Two Thousands only). Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of receipt of copy of the order