Case No.746/08

Suneeti, 170, Street No.6, Rajeev Colony, Narela, Delhi – 110040.

…..Complainant

Versus

The Body Care, Slimming & Beauty Clinic, For Men & Women, 25, Cental Market, Punjabi Bagh (West), New Delhi.

……..Opposite Parties



CORAM : J.P. SHARMA : PRESIDENT

: S.M. MAZUMDAR : MEMBER

: DR. PREMLATA : MEMBER



O R D E R

J.P. SHARMA (PRESIDENT) :

In brief, complainant’s case is that in pursuance of wide publicity and attractive advertisement given by OP through print and electronic media regarding the beauty and skin treatments, she approached M/s.Body Care at their Punjabi Bagh (West) Centre in April, 2007 and opted for the lower face hair removal laser treatment. The grievance of the complainant is that in the beginning, she was put of by OP staff after having received Rs.13,000/- towards lower face hair removal treatment. Ultimately, Complainant was given only five sittings instead of eight sittings promised and the treatment was left in the midst. She thereafter, was harassed as none attended to her as explained in the complaint and so she had served OP with legal notice which was not replied and therefore, she has approached this Forum with the present complaint with the prayer that OP be directed to refund her the amount of Rs.13,000/- already paid together with compensation and cost.



Though OP supplied advance copy of their alleged reply, no formal reply by OP was filed before this Forum though an affidavit was placed on record on behalf of OP.



We have heard Sh.Kulbhushan Arora – Ld. Counsel for complainant, have gone through the material on record and have considered his relevant contentions. None for OP turned up during arguments.



In the affidavits, OP have not specifically denied the vital averments of the complainant. OP themselves admit in their written statement that they approach their prospective clients through advertisements as has been the case of the complainant. Instead of making any definite statement, OP felt contended by vaguely pleading that in case there had been only five sittings as alleged by the complainant then it must have been in consequence of the lapses on the part of the complainant. No such alleged lapses on the part of the complainant have been elaborated by OP in their affidavit. Rather this vague plea of OP on such a vital aspect goes to show that they have maintained no record regarding the treatment given to the complainant. Further OP have claimed that complainant’s main grievance is with regard to the alleged refusal by them to give her the remaining three sittings for the laser treatment for the removal of her facial hair. OP claimed that it is not the case of the complainant that she has not been benefited from the treatment administered to her. This plea of OP clearly shows that they have not even opted to carefully go through the contents of the complaint of complainant against them. In clear terms, complainant in the complaint has stated that though OP assured that the treatment would have permanent effect but on the contrary that too proved false assurance and complainant thus felt cheated and looted in the hands of OP.



Since complainant’s averments remained unassailed, the conduct of OP in having stopped giving the treatment just after five sittings as against eight sittings promised and that too without any result, a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP is clearly made out.



We, therefore, direct OP to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.13,000/- taken in advance and also pay her a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and cost for the harassment caused to her on account of deficiency in service on their part.



OP shall comply with the above mentioned order within 30 days of its receipt failing which proceedings u/s 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act may be initiated against them.



A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge. Thereafter, the file be consigned to the Record Room.