BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

                                                                               SMT. K. SIREESHA, LADY MEMBER

                                                                               SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER

Thursday, 4^th August 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 38 / 2016

K. Anuradha, age 28 years, D/o K. Eswaraiah,

caste : Yadav, Hindu, D.No. 4/185, Mydukur Road,

Khajipeta Village and Post and Mandal,

YSR District – 516 203.                                                                ….. Complainant.

Vs.

R.K. Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor,

M/s Franchise of Anoo’s Electrolysis and Obesity (P) Ltd.,

Raja Redy Street, Opp. CSI Grounds, Kadapa, A.P.                            ………Respondent

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 28-7-2016 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Sri P.V. Sudhakar, Advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Member),

1.                Complaint filed under section 12  of C.P. Act 1986.

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-   The Complainant approached R.K. Enterprises for hair growth treatment at that time the Complainant asked the problem i.e. 1) Re-growth of fallen hair, 2) for length hair, 3) there should not be hair fallen at the time of treatment and the Complainant confined to 15 sittings out of her final status.  For the same  R.K. Enterprises agreed and they started the treatment, but not hair fallen problem.   There is less dandruff problem.  But the Respondent said  to the Complainant that the treatment will be betterment treatment without side effects and the treatment will go under the supervision of experts only. 

3.                After that the Respondent decided that the Complainant had scalp shine problem and after taking 15^th sitting treatment and problem will be rectified. The result of the treatment will be stand for life time.  The Respondent started treatment on 28-5-2014, as per advice of the Respondent the Complainant had best result treatment from the Respondent.   The Respondent told that by 7^th sitting there will be growth of baby hair and after 15^th sitting there will be 60 – 80% of hair growth.  The Respondent had taken photograph of hair of the Complainant by their sitting.  After that the treatment was started there much hair fall to the Complainant.  When the Complainant asked her hair fall but the Respondent replied that the dead hair will go and the new growth will by 7^th sitting.  But after 13^th sitting there was no growth of baby hair.  Then the Respondent told to use serum worth of Rs. 3,500/-.  The treatment was up to 4 months but there is no re-growth of 60 – 80%.  When the Complainant asked about low hair growth, they said after 15^th sitting the result will be there.  Like that the Complainant had approached the Respondent every week for one year. The Complainant had tables, hair packs, hair oil; hair re-growth shampoo purchased from the Respondent and used all these on her skull, but there is no result.  Then the Complainant asked about the result for that the Respondent said again pay amount and after another treatment.  At the time of treatment the Complainant suffered with side effects along with much loss of hair for the treatment given by the Respondent to the Complainant.  The Complainant faced side effects like blocking face, severe headache. 

4.                After one year the Complainant consulted the Respondent and said about the fee of Rs. 28,500/- paid to them for treatment for serum, shampoo, oil, hair pack, mintop – 10 tablets etc., the Complainant had spent Rs. 12,500/- and she had travelling charges of Rs. 1,500/- in total she spent, but there was no result.  The Respondent had given evasive replies after that the Complainant had sent a notice dt. 2-2-2016 for loss of her Rs. 42,500/- and loss of her time and for demanding compensation.  The Complainant asked Respondent to refund her amount i.e. fees paid towards treatment and expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.  On 2-2-2016 the Complainant was at Respondent parlor the Respondent had forcibly had signatures on the applications by the Complainant.  The Complainant as the problem was not solved and again consulted other specialist doctor for treatment and there she spent Rs. 6,000/-.  In these circumstances there is no other alternative to the Complainant.  The Complainant approached the Hon’ble forum for reliefs. 

5.                It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum to direct the Respondent (a)  to pay Rs. 28,500/- towards fee, tables, shampoos, serum etc.,   (b) to pay              Rs. 12,500/- towards expenditure (c) to pay Rs. 1,500/- towards travelling charges and Rs. 500/- towards expenditure of registered posts and others (d) to pay Rs. 6,000/- towards treatment expenditure (f) to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony.

6.                The Respondent filed a counter that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The Complainant is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted by this Respondent herein.   

7.                It is submitted that the Respondent is franchise of Anoos Electrolysis and obesity (P) Ltd., and he has having number of branches in A.P. Telangana and Karnataka etc., and they ae having good reputation in their sector.  They are providing treatment which is paramedical in nature to the prospective claims who are suffering dandruff, hair fall problem lock problem and obesity problems.  It is submitt3ed that the Complainant herein taken treatment from 28-5-2014 to 27-8-2014 totally she had taken fifteen sitting.  In fact, the Complainant prior to the treatment i.e. 28-5-2014 she visited the respondents organization along with her parents and described her hair lock problem etc., on that day she agreed to undergo a treatment for fifteen sittings.  Due to her financial status the Respondent herein has minimized the charges for each sitting and totally they fixed Rs. 25,364-90.  The Complainant has paid the above said amount.

8.                It is humbly submitted that at the time of treatment on 28-6-2014 i.e. at fifth sittings the Respondent’s organization has taken photographs of her hair wherein it is clearly reveals that the loss of heir is very high and the hair in very thin.  It is submitted that the Complainant when approached the Respondent organization she was suffering from severe hair loss for the past 4 to 5 years.  Therefore, this problem is a chronic one.  Therefore, the Respondent organization advised her to go for fifteen sittings minimum.  Further it is submitted that the Respondent informed her that hair loss can be cleared by using medicines and also undergoing laser treatment and they also warned using medicines and also undergoing laser treatment and they also warned her not to use bore water and etc., and also maintaining food hair depends on so many factors i.e.  hair, ethnicity, genetic factor, weight, hormones, diet, medication, metabolism, diabetes, steroids, stress and tension level and use of birth control pills etc., even after completion of treatment the Complainant has to take care of heir hair by taking precautions and also reducing her stress and tension level and also she is advised to take appropriate diet.

9.                It is submitted that at the end of treatment i.e. on 1-9-2014 the photograph of the Complainant’s hair has been taken and this picture clearly shows that there is growth of heir hair and also the hair is thick when compared with photograph taken on 28-6-2014 both the photographs and CDs are herewith filed for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble forum.  It is submitted while joining Respondent’s organization the Complainant has signed in client consent form.  Wherein it is stated in 13^th point as follows I am aware that fees once paid will not be refunded under any circumstances.

10.              It is humbly submitted that 15^th sittings of the Complainant with the Respondent organization are completed as on 27-9-2014 after completion of the treatment she is satisfied with her hair problem as it is almost subsided and there is substantial growth of hair.  Further the Respondent organization advised her to go for further sittings in order to have very thick hair.  Due to her problem as she has to shuttle between Khajipet and Kadapa and also it is very difficult for her parents to come along with her for all the sittings under these circumstances, she declined to take further sittings.  After lapse of 17 months she came to the Respondent’s organization and demanded them to refund her treatment fee and other expenses incidental thereto.  It is submitted that at that time the respondent organization told her it is against the policy of their organization, but the Complainant vehemently and aggressively demanded the Respondent to refund the entire fee. Finally after discussion in the presence of Branch Manager and the Respondent both parties agreed refund and also on 7-11-2015 the Respondent paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant and the Complainant agreed for the settlement and also she agreed that she has no claim of whatsoever in nature with respect to the refund received against the said company anoo’s obesity and electrolysis Pvt. Ltd., or its franchises. 

11.              It is submitted that after settling the matter the Complainant sent notice to the Respondent for which she is not entitled to do so as the matter is settled with her consent on 7-12-2015.  But the Complainant foisted this complaint against the Respondent in order to have illegal monitory gain and also to defame the Respondent in the market.  As per the complaint of the Complainant the allegations leveled against the Respondent that after treatment her problem is not solved, and also she had some side effects during the course of treatment and etc., are all false and denied by this Respondent.  Further it is submitted that in her complaint she stated in page No. 5 last paragraph that the Respondent by suing their force they made her to sign in an application form is also false and invented for the purpose of this complaint only.  It is submitted that the Complainant so far not preferred any complaint before the SHO I town P.s. Kadapa city, Kadapa and also not prefer any complaint to any police authorities.  The attitude of the Complainant clearly reveals that unnecessarily, unwontedly she has been blaming the Respondent and also in directly she has been propagating in an around Khajipt and Kadapa that her treatment was failure and she lost her hair due to the treatment given by the Respondent organization is false and invented for the purpose of this case.  In  fact, the treatment completed during the end of September 2014, whereas the Complainant preferred a complaint before this Hon’ble court in the month of June 2016.  Therefore, there is gap of nearly one and half year for these 17/ 18 months she has not consulted the Respondent and also she has not properly explained while she was silent for all these 17 / 18 month without preferring any complaint before the Hon’ble court or contacting the Respondent organization.  Therefore, the attitude of the Complainant is not satisfactory and also she did not have any valid reason to file the complaint before the Hon’ble court.  The Respondent has no knowledge and information that the Complainant has been taking treatment under Dr. Narothama Reddy.  The Complainant approached this Hon’ble court with clean hands.  There is no cause of action for the complaint.  The Respondent reserves his right to file additional counter is necessary.  It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs, in the interests of justice. 

12.              On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation as  prayed by her or not?
2.  Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent or not?
3.   To what relief?

13.              On behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf Respondent Exs. B1 to B6 were marked.       

14.              Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is very clear from Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 that the Complainant joined with the Respondent franchise for her treatment.  As per treatment of the Respondent the Complainant underwent for fifteen sittings treatment and she followed the advice of the Respondent in using shampoo and etc., which is part and parcel of the treatment.  After fifteenth sitting the Complainant was not satisfied the treatment and she had issued notice to the Respondent dt. 2-2-2016 stating that she was not satisfied and she demanded for Rs. 42,500/-.  As per Ex. B4 the Respondent had issued receipt for Rs. 10,000/-, dt. 7-11-2015 to the Complainant in that receipt it was not specifically mentioned that which is full or part refund of money.  It clearly shows that the Respondent had agreed that he had committed a mistake and refunded the amount of Rs. 10,000/-. If,  there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Respondent, why he paid Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant, it clearly proves deficiency of service and negligence of the Respondent treatment.  So basing on Ex. B4 the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Complainant.  The Complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed by her. 

15.              Point No. 3. In the result the complaint is allowed, directing the Respondent to pay Rs. 18,500/- (Rupees eighteen thousand five hundred only) towards treatment fees paid by the Complainant, pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the complaint and pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony to the Complainant, within 45 days of date of receipt of orders.  

                   Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the  4^th August 2016.

MEMBER                                       MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant :   NIL                                        For Respondents :            NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant: -

Ex: A1         P/c of  treatment details given to the complainant and paid amount  Dt.2-11-2015.

Ex: A2         P/c of the payment bill of amount of Rs.5,000/- on 9-11-2015.

Ex: A3         P/c of  Notice given to the Respondent and postal receipt.

Ex: A4         P/c of  prescriptions and payment of bills 5 in nos.

Ex: A5         P/c of  Thoyroid test by Rainbow Medall to the complainant,  Dt. 14-11-2015.

Ex: A6         C.D. of treatment given after and before photos of the complainant.

Ex: A7         Five Photographs of complainant after and before treatment.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondent :– 

Ex:B1          Photograph taken on 28-6-2014.

Ex:B2          Photograph taken on 1-9-2014 along with C.D.

Ex:B3          Client Consent Form.

Ex:B4          Receipt cum declaration dated 7-11-2015 for Rs.10,000/- signed

                   by the complainant and respondent.

Ex. B5         P/c of treatment details for trichosealp of R.K. Enterprises, Kadapa dt. 2-6-2016.

Ex. B6         P/c of pre-counseling form for Hair and Scalp treatment of Anoo’s Electrolysis and obesity (P) Ltd., Hyderabad, dt. 22-5-2014.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                              PRESIDENT                                  

Copy to :-

1. K. Anuradha, age 28 years, D/o K. Eswaraiah, caste Yadav, Hindu, D.No. 4/185, Mydukur Road, Khajipeta Village and Post and Mandal,
2. Sri P.V. Sudhakar, Advocate for Respondent.
3. B.V.P.