| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/237/19 Date of Institution:- 07.06.2019 Order Reserved on:- 25.11.2024 Date of Decision:- 06.12.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Jaya aged 37 years W/o Dr. Narender Singh R/o Flat No.102, Block B-2B, Golf Flinks, Dwarka New Delhi .….. Complainant VERSUS - SAB Fitness and Training Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Address of the center A1/03 Samridhi Apartment, Sector 18B, Dwarka At Present: 759, Akshardham Apartment, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka Through Authorised person (New Delhi). - Ms. Gitanjali
C/o SAB Fitness and Training Centre Pvt. Ltd. Address of the center A1/03 Samridhi Apartment, Sector 18B, Dwarka At Present: 759, Akshardham Apartment, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka .…..Opposite Parties ORDER Per Dr. Harshali Kaur, Member - The complainant purchased a fitness and weight loss course at OP-1 after being convinced by the various representations and assurances of OP staff through OP-2. On 22.10.2018, a membership ID No.237081 dated 22.10.2018 was issued to the complainant, and she paid Rs.4000/- cash on 23.10.2018 for the package opted for by her for 10kgs weight loss + Body therapy + 4CRYO. The expiry date of the package was 22.03.2019.
- The complainant states that she paid Rs.6,000/- on 26.10.2018 and Rs.30,000/- on 14.11.2018 towards the weight loss package worth Rs.43,000/-. The complainant has annexed the invoices dated 22.10.2018 issued by OP-1 on pages 10 to 12of the complaint.
- It is the complainant's case that despite attending the sessions, following a liquid diet and exercising daily as per the instructions given by the OPs, she could not see any positive results. Later, without prior notice and intimation, the OP shifted its centre to a place inconvenient for the complainant to reach. Despite requests to restart the centre at the earlier location, the complainant states that the OPs did not heed her request.
- The complainant also approached the OPs regarding her dismal results of weight loss despite following every instruction given by the OPs but was turned away, stating that 26 sessions had already been given to her and she had stubborn fat. Disappointed with the OPs services, the complainant issued a legal notice on 08.05.2019 (page no.6 of the complaint),which the OPs allegedly refused to accept.
- Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. She has sought directions to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- along with interest @24% p.a. from the date of booking till realization, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony harassment and other expenses.
- On notice, the OPs filed a joint reply. OP-1 and 2 stated that the complainant opted for a 10kg weight loss package, including 16 body therapies, and 4 cryo were included in the package. The complainant utilized 28 sessions, 5 body therapies and 2 Cryo out of her package. However, she did not adhere to the treatment schedule suggested by the OPs and attended the sessions arbitrarily, at her own convenience.
- Further, denying the claim of the complainant that she was not told about the shifting of OP-1 to another location, the OP stated that the OP staff informed the complainant regarding the location change and sent several messages to the complainant to complete her remaining sessions and therapies, but the complainant demanded that the OPs provide a home pick up which was not possible to do. Further, the old centre is near the new centre, and hence, the complainant, after completing a substantial part of her package, has filed this complaint for wrongful gains.
- Further, as evident in the invoice, the complainant paid only Rs.40,000/- towards the package costing Rs.43,000/- and did not make the balance payment of Rs. 3000/- despite the OPs requesting her to make the balance payment. Hence, it is the complainant's own inability to adhere to the diet plan and change her lifestyle as suggested by the OPs, due to which her results were temporary.
- When purchasing the package from the OPs, the complainant had signed the declaration after reading and understanding the terms of the package prior to its purchase. No guarantee was given to the complainant regarding the results to be achieved from the package. Thus, the complainant was well aware that the results would depend on her ability to adhere to the instructions for the OP treatment. Further, she was also aware that OPs have the right to change their centre from one location to another, as is mentioned clearly in the declaration.
- While the OPs provide only ten sessions in a package to its clients, the complainant took 28 sessions, 5 body therapies and 2 Cryo,and lost 3 Kg weight and 9.6 inches due to the weight loss treatment. She has duly acknowledged this weight loss in the log maintained by the OPs. However, the results could not stay for long due to the complainant's inability to change her lifestyle or food habits.
- The OPs admit that the complainant has completed a substantial part of her package except for a few body therapies and cryo, but the question of refund does not arise as the complainant still has to pay the balance of Rs.10,000/-. The OPs have filed the weight loss/inch loss record CAR of the complainant along with a copy of the signed declaration, body composition analysis, measurement chart, weight record and treatment record with the reply as Annexure-R4 and a screenshot of the messages sent to her regarding the change of location of OP-1 centre dated 08.02.2019 apprising the complainant about her session as Annexure-R5.
- The complainant chose not to file rejoinder to the reply and filed her affidavit in evidence reiterating the averments as made in her complaint stating therein that OP-2, who is the owner of OP-1, stopped attending her calls, which is why the complainant has made her as a necessary party. The OPs filed the affidavit of Smt. Geetanjali Bhardwaj, OP-2, in person, who, also repeated the statements as made in the reply. Both parties filed the written arguments, and we have heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant and time was given to the OPs to the arguments, but the OPs did not avail of this opportunity.
- We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have also carefully perused the documents placed on record by the contesting parties.
- We find that the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- to book a 10kg 10kgs weight loss + Body therapy + 4 CRYO on 22.10.2018. The weight loss program had an expiry date of 10.01.2019. The total amount for the package the complainant opted for was Rs.43,000/- from OP-1 centre, of which OP-2 is the owner. OP-1 issued the receipts towards these payments, copies of which are annexed along with the complaint.
- The complainant's case is that despite following the advice and directions of OP-1 staff, the complainant has not had successful weight loss. The complainant also alleges that the OP shifted the premises to an inconvenient place without informing her about the same due to which she could not continue her package.
- The OP has contested the complaint, stating that the complainant was irregular in attending the sessions and hence did not have long-lasting results, as is evident from the records they have filed and proved on record. Further, the complainant was informed several times about the change of premises, and she was also requested to finish her package within time. However, the OPs have not filed a copy of the message or email sent to its clients informing them of the relocation. Hence, the bald statement remains unsubstantiated with cogent evidence.
- The complainant made part payment of Rs.40,000/- towards her package worth Rs. 43,000/- that she took on 22.10 .2018 and has a balance amount of Rs 3,000/- still to be paid to the OPs, which she chose not to pay till the filing of this complaint despite taking service from the OPs.
- A bare perusal of the Body Composition Analysis of the complainant, a copy of which is filed by the OP on page no.16 of the reply, shows that the complainant lost weight within the first month itself and thereafter had intermittent weight gain and weight loss till 03.02.2019 which clarifies that she was indeed losing weight when she came for her sessions. According to the Body Composition Analysis, the complainant undoubtedly lost weight till the 25th session on 03.02.2019. This alludes to the fact that the complainant was showing the treatment results. Hence, the OPs cannot be held liable for the complainant's own inability to attend her sessions.
- Similarly, the complainant was aware that the weight loss treatment results may vary. A simple reading of the declaration form dated 13.08.2018 duly signed by the complainant annexed on page no.15 of the reply states as below:
Declaration I have also been explained in the language I understand that the results of each program may vary from person depending upon the individual body composition, health status, metabolism and other factors including diet and lifestyle and as such results of the program (s) cannot be guarantee and the lack of results will not be construed as deficiency of service. Undoubtedly, the complainant had read these terms and conditions before signing the document. - In light of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint, and in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are constrained to dismiss the present complaint without costs. Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed, and the parties are left to bear their own cost.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 06.12.2024.
| |
