DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 17th day of May, 2024
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 18/10/2022
CC/194/2022
Vijaya M.,
D/o. Muthu,
Thundathil veedu, Kavilpadu Post,
Olavakkode, Palakkad – 678 012. - Complainant
(By Adv. Prince J. Palathara)
Vs
Rooma,
Chief Consultant,
Rooma Permanent Cosmetic Clinic,
63/4421 – C, Kathrikadavu,
Kaloor, Kochi - Opposite party
(O.P. by Adv. Joseph Devassy)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Gist of the complainant’s pleadings is that being enamored by the advertisement of the opposite party and upon being assured by the OP that her dark hued lips will become pink after undergoing contouring process and pigmentation process under the OP, she underwent the above procedure. She also underwent microblading for hair growth of her eye brows. But contrary to the undertaking made by the opposite party, the complainant’s lips did not become pink or hair did not grow in the eyebrows. Huge amounts were expended for the procedures. Aggrieved thereby, this complaint is filed.
- OP contented that she is not a doctor as addressed by the complainant in the cause title of the complaint. She had never undertaken to change the colour of lips to pink. She had only undertaken to lighten the shade of complainant’s lips. Her complaints with regard to micro blading is also false. She had failed to adhere to the procedures to be followed. The complainant was given counselling before undergoing the procedure. There is no deficiency in service.
- The following issues were framed for consideration:
- Whether the opposite party failed to provide the promised cosmetological effect to the complainant by the treatment?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
- Any other reliefs?
4. (i) Evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5. There was no objection whatsoever in marking the exhibits.
(ii) O.P. filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. B1 & B2.
Issue No.1
5. Complainant’s grievance is that even though the complainant was assured that her lips would turn to pink from black after the procedure and that her scanty eyebrows would thicken after microblading, the opposite party failed to produce the desired and assured results and hence she sought for return of the fees paid. The fee was not returned.
6. OP has stoutly opposed the complainant’s pleadings. OP stated that she had never undertaken to provide with pink lips to the complainant. All that the O.P. had undertaken was that the present shade of colour would be lightened. During the course of procedure, the complainant has consulted some doctor without the consent of the opposite party. The complainant also not approached for some of the final phase of procedures.
7. Documents produced by the complainant are invoices evidencing payment of fees. These invoices will not prove the allegation of the complainant whether there was any deficiency in service of not. Complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the results were not at par with the assured results undertaken by the OP.
Documents produced and marked by the OP does not reveal what the assurance undertook by the OP with regard to pigmentation was, insofar as the colour is concerned.
8. Therefore, this Commission is unable to come to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in line with the allegations raised by the complainant.
Issue No. 2
9. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service, as alleged, on the part of opposite party.
Issue No. 3
10. Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
Issue No. 4
11. In the result, based on the findings as noted supra, we dismiss the complaint.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.
Pronounced in open court on this the 17th day of May, 2024.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Original invoice bearing No.4150 dated 06/11/2021
Ext.A2 – Original invoice bearing No.4212 dated 24/11/2021
Ext.A3 - Original invoice bearing No.4213 dated 24/11/2021
Ext.A4 - Original invoice bearing No.4359 dated 18/12/2021
Ext.A5 – Original invoice bearing No.4408 dated 14/02/2022
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 - Original customer consent form
Ext.B2 – Original consent for undergoing permanent cosmetics
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
