Khushboo Singhal,

#231, “Apna Ghar” 5th Cross,

80 Feet Road, RMV 2nd Stage,

2nd Block, Bangalore – 560 094.

…. Complainant.

V/s


KAYA SKIN CLINIC, 7 & 8,

Brindavan Apartments,

No:66/1, Hosur Road,

Audugoid, Bangalore – 560 030.

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.99,999/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-

2. The complainant went to KAYA SKIN CLINIC for facial in the month of August – 2008 and on examination of her skin, the Doctor told that she can go for treatment and the same will cure her acne and pimples and will also enhance her skin tone and promised free facial if she took the package. The complainant informed the Doctor that if she goes for treatment she might develop swelling in the Lymph node and the same had happened once in the previous year. But the Doctor assured that nothing will happen this time and advised to go ahead with the treatment.

At the time of registration for treatment, the staff at the Clinic did not inform that the fees paid for services is nor refundable and only told that the cost of package is Rs.12,105/-. She paid the amount through her credit card. She got the first free service on 07/09/2008 and developed swelling in the Lymph node on 11/09/2008. She informed the Doctor that she has developed swelling, but the Doctor was not present at that time and the other Doctors in the Clinic told that she can consult the other Doctor. The complainant informed that first she will be going to ENT Specialist and then will decide if she wishes to see the other Doctor or not. After visiting ENT Specialist at APOLLO CLINIC, she informed the Opposite Party that she likes to see the same Doctor who had examined her skin and she was informed that the same Doctor would be available on the next day.

Accordingly the appointment was fixed on 13/09/2009. On the appointed day, the Doctor examined the complainant, but was not sure why the swelling had happened. The complainant informed the Doctor that she does not want to go ahead with the service and wants refund of the amount paid. The Doctor informed that the coordinator will handle the issue regarding refund and asked the coordinator to deal with the issue. The coordinator said that she needs to talk to higher authorities for refund and asked the complainant to follow up. When the complainant called back the clinic they asked her to meet other Doctor at some other clinic. Accordingly she met Dr.Pakhi, but the said Doctor was not aware of the case before hand. Only after the complainant went to the clinic, she went through the case and examined the complainant and prescribed few tests at a cost of around Rs.4,000/- to 5,000/-. The Doctor also stated that the complainant has to bear the cost of the tests stating that it is for her benefit.

When the complainant asked the said Doctor about the refund of the amount paid, the Doctor informed that she does not know about the refund issue and the same will be taken care by some other department. The staff of the clinic at Koramangala kept on changing and was rude at times. She was directed to meet Ms.Mitali at Indira Nagar clinic for the refund issue. But she said that the fees paid for service is not refundable and that she can gift the package to any of her friends or relatives. The complainant informed her that she does not wish to gift the package to anybody and wants refund of the amount. Thereupon Ms.Mitali told that she will talk to Mumbai office and will get back, but she did not do so.

After repeated calls, she said that she will let the complainant know after about a month and will call with the positive reply, but ultimately she informed that the refund is not possible. After the service at the Opposite Party clinic, the complainant also developed hair growth on the face which was not there earlier. She got hormone analysis done for the same and the test shows that there is no change in the hormones thereby meaning that the hair growth is not because of hormone change but because of an external factor. She asked the Opposite Party to refund the amount after deducting service charges, but they have not done so and kept her waiting for six months. The complainant consulted a senior Dermatologist who informed that the infection was caused due to the service in the Opposite Party clinic. The ENT Specialist at Apollo clinic also informed that she should not get the treatment again, if she wants to avoid swelling. Hence, the complaint.

3. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent.

4. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed her affidavit and has produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?



6. Our findings are:-

Point No.1 : In the Affirmative

Point No.2 : as per final order, for

the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. Since in spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent, the material on record has gone unchallenged. In the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence, the complainant has affirmed the averments in the complaint. From the documents placed on record it is clear that on the assurance of the Opposite Party that the treatment to be given to her in the clinic will not have any adverse effect, the complainant paid Rs.12,105/- towards package cost for the treatment.

The contention of the complainant that after the first service itself she got swelling on the lymph node which had happened on the earlier occasion also has remained unchallenged. It is the specific contention of the complainant that when she approached the Opposite Party for treatment she had informed about her suffering swelling in the lymph node on the earlier occasion on taking treatment, but the Opposite Party assured that she will not suffer such swelling with the treatment they are giving. Only on such assurance, the complainant agreed to take treatment and paid Rs.12,105/- towards package cost, but she suffered swelling again on account of the treatment given by the Opposite Party. This only indicates that knowing well about the complications, the Opposite Party insisted the complainant to go for treatment and collected Rs.12,105/- towards package. When the treatment given by the Opposite Party had adverse effect on the complainant and the Opposite Party was unable to sort out the reason for the same and failed to give proper treatment, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant towards cost of the package.

It is not fair on the part of the Opposite Party to ask the complainant to gift the package of the value of Rs.12,105/- to any of her friends or relatives. If the swelling suffered by the complainant was not due to the treatment given by them, the Opposite Party would not have remained absent in these proceedings. In the circumstance, we find it proper to direct the Opposite Party to refund the sum of Rs.12,105/- paid by the complainant. Though the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.99,999/-, in our opinion the compensation claimed by the complainant Party is on the higher side. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.5,000/-. In the result, we pass the following:-



-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The Opposite Party directed to refund Rs.12,105/- paid by the complainant together with interest at 10% Per Annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. The Opposite Party is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication.