COMPLAINT NO: 154 OF 2009 Maitreyee Boruah, C/o Bibhudutta Kar, N0-7, First Floor, West Block, Rekha Park Apartments, Behind Tulsi Theatre, Marathahalli, Bangalore-37. Complainant

V/S


Dr. Aparna, Area Manager (South), Inspirations Slimming and Beauty Clinic, II Floor, Above NEXT Electronics, Opposite Innovative Multiplex, Ring Road, Marathahalli, Bangalore. Opposite Party

ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale

This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs. 20,225/-. The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant has enrolled in a six month slimming program at Inspirations on 25th November-2008 by paying Rs.20,225 as advance fee. The receipt has been produced. The complainant decided to end the programme on 1st January-2009 as she was not getting any result from the session and she informed about the same and asked the opposite party to return her money back. The authorities of the opposite party simply refused her plea on the excuse that the money is not refundable. Complainant repeatedly requested to return her money, but it yielded no result.

She has serious doubts about the methods adopted by the opposite party. They use various electronics gadgets during the sessions, the scientific veracity of which is hard to find. The opposite party cheated her of Rs.20,225/- and has played with her health causing severe mental harassment. Hence, the complaint.


2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite parties put in appearance through Advocate and defence version filed stating that, the complainant enrolled herself in a six months slimming package program and paid Rs.20,225/-. For which the receipt has been issued. After one month of the start of the package, complainant approached the opposite party and mentioned to stop further sessions of slimming treatment abruptly and asked for refund of Rs.20,225/-, the amount paid by her. Before enrolling to take the package, it was clearly mentioned by the representative of the opposite party that money once paid will not be refunded. It is mentioned in the receipt also.
The complainant has signed on the receipt after going through the terms and conditions before taking slimming program. The reliefs claimed by the complainant are not covered under the Act and the complainant is not liable for any relief. The staffs working in the clinic of opposite party are all specialist in and also highly qualified doctors, dietitians and trained technicians. The opposite party is running this clinic since several years and the over weight body patient and otherwise also people are taking advantage of these services. It is false to suggest that due to starvation complainant developed anemia and weakness and dizziness.

The diet of starvation was never advised by the dietitians of the opposite party. So there is no question of weakness, anemia or dizziness as claimed by the complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant is totally baseless, frivolous and untenable at law and may be dismissed.


3. Affidavit evidences of both the parties are filed. Arguments are heard.


4. The points for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount? If so what is the quantum of mount?


REASONS


5. It is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has enrolled herself in a six months slimming program at opposite party. It is also an admitted fact that she had paid Rs.20,225/- as advance fee for the said program on 25/11/2008. The payment of the amount is fairly admitted by the opposite party in the defence version.

The complainant has produced receipt dated 25/11/2008. From this receipt also, it is clear that Rs.20,225/- has been paid by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that she has not getting good result from the sessions and therefore she had informed the opposite party for a decision to discontinue the program and asked the opposite party to return her money back. But the authorities of the opposite party refused to refund the amount.

Therefore, she has filed the present complaint. During the course of argument the complainant fairly submitted that she had attended one month program. As per the treatment record produced by the opposite party also it is clear that the complainant attended the program from 25/11/2008 to 26/12/2008. The complainant who is a journalist fairly argued that the opposite party can deduct proportionate fee for one month course. The fee paid by the complainant for six months program is Rs.20,225/-.

If it is divided by six the fee for one month’s course comes to Rs.3,337/-. If the opposite party is allowed to deduct fee for one month’s course the remaining balance that could be payable to the complainant comes to Rs.16,887/-. The complainant decided to end the program and she had informed her intention and a decision to the opposite party and asked them to refund the money.

The opposite party could have fairly and rightly refunded the amount because the complainant had paid advance fee for six months course/program. Since the complainant could not get the proper result and she had decided to discontinue the program and accordingly informed the opposite party and requested for refund of fee. The argument advanced by the opposite party that fee once paid is not refundable cannot be accepted in law or on facts.

The service providers have to change his/her mindset that fee once paid is not refundable. Law does not authorise or permit the service providers to take advance fee and deny refund of the fee to the customers if the program is discontinued for any reasons best known to the customer. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. Consumer is considered to be a King in the present democratic system. A consumer is the most important visitor in the premises of service providers.
He/she is not dependent on the service provider, on the other hand the service providers are dependent on the customer/consumer. The service providers are not doing any favour by serving the customer, on the other hand the consumer/customer is doing favour to the service providers by giving them an opportunity to serve. Admittedly, in this case the complainant has attended only one month program. The fee received by the opposite party is for six months program in advance.

Therefore, it is just, fair and reasonable to direct the opposite party to refund the proportionate fee of Rs.16,887/- to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 16,887/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount will carry interest at 12% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realisation.