Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/148/2015

Reva Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

VLCC Health Care Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Jun 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	148 of 2015
Date of Institution	26.06.2015
Date of Decision	30.06.2015

Ms.Reva Garg wife of Col.S.K.Garg resident of House No.1101, Rly Eng. Department (TA) Near Rly Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                        …..Appellant/Complainant.

                                Versus

1. VLCC Health Care Limited, SCO No.43, Pocket No.1, 1^st floor, Mani Majra, Chandigarh through its Manager/authorised representative.
2. VLCC Health Care Limited, Regd. Office :- M-14, GK-II, Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110004 through its Manager/ authorised representative.

                                        …..Respondent/Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Smt.Reva Garg, appellant in person.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.05.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.733 of 2014, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“10.     Evidently, the empty sachet produced before this Forum during the oral arguments was an expired one. It has also not been denied that the balance amount of Rs.26,000/- is lying in the possession of the Opposite Parties since a long time. Accordingly, we feel that the allegations of the Complainant against the Opposite Parties are duly proved. The Opposite Parties are guilty of committing deficiency in service as well as indulging in unfair trade practice by using an expired product on the Complainant and thereafter, not refunding the balance amount inspite of such a big mistake. Accordingly, we find merit in the Complaint and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To refund Rs.26,000/- to the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment;  

 

                        [c] To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.     The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-.”  

2.             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant joined the slimming program with the Opposite Parties in November, 2013 by paying an amount of Rs.33,400/-. It was stated that during the sessions, the complainant was shocked to see the condition of the centre and noticed that no hygiene was there, the Velcro of the belts was not workable, bathroom was not properly cleaned and was stinking, staff members (male and female) were using same bathroom, as used by the clients, towels used to wrap were wet and cold, the gowns were not cleaned and, as such, the above mentioned shortcomings in the services were brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, but nothing concrete was done. It was further stated that during February, 2014, the complainant suffered Herpes Zoster, as per medical record (Annexure C-1), due to the unhygienic condition at the centre. It was further stated that the complainant after getting recovery from the disease became disinterested in the program due to unhygienic conditions and ailment suffered by her and, as such, she approached the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount but one Ms.Pooja instead of refunding the amount persuaded her to transfer the amount to beauty section. The complainant had no other option and she consented for transfer of the amount to beauty section. It was further stated that during de-pigmentation treatment, the complainant noticed that the Opposite Parties were using the expired product on her, which was evident from the photographs of the sachet (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the Opposite Parties tried to get back the empty sachet from the possession of the complainant used by them, on her, but she did not hand over the same to them. It was further stated that the complainant exchanged a number of mails with the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount (Annexure C-3) but she did not get any response from them. It was further stated that the complainant registered a DDR on 06.09.2014 (Annexure C-4), but the same did not evoke the desired results. Eventually, the Opposite Parties vide their reply (Annexure C-5), with a view to usurp the amount deposited by the complainant, relied on certain clauses, which were not applicable in her case. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties were deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.             In their written statement, the Opposite Parties, stated that the allegations levelled by the complainant in para No.2 of the complaint were vague and baseless in nature. It was further stated that after the husband of the complainant was fully satisfied with the services by the Opposite Parties offered, the complainant in November, 2013 selected and joined a slimming program of her own choice. It was vehemently denied that neither there were any shortcomings in the services of the Opposite Parties or there was any lack of proper maintenance of any kind whatsoever. It was further stated that the complainant had never complained about the alleged condition of the centre. It was further stated that the Certificate of doctor (Annexure C-1) nowhere mentioned that the complainant contracted Herpes Zoster from alleged unhygienic conditions at the centre and on the contrary, it was mentioned therein that “she may have contracted the disease from another person suffering from Chicken Pox/Shingles”. It was further stated that at the time of her admission, the complainant was clearly informed that the amount being paid by her for availing of the slimming program package was non-refundable and also the services under the package had to be availed of within the stipulated time period of 80 days. The complainant accepted the terms and conditions. Copy of the terms and conditions duly accepted and signed by the complainant is Annexure OP-1. It was further stated that as a goodwill gesture, the Opposite Parties transferred the remaining value of slimming services to beauty services, upon the request of the complainant. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 had a strict Policy regarding non-usage of products beyond their shelf life. Any products, unused and beyond their expiry date were either recalled or discarded by Opposite Party No.2 and under no circumstances were allowed to be used for customers. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 never ever used any expired products, hence the question of bringing the said fact to its notice did not arise. It was further stated that DDR entry was nothing but a pressure tactics by the complainant to extract money from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Parties, were neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             The complainant, filed rejoinder to the reply of the Opposite Parties, wherein she reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Parties. 

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved against the inadequacy of relief granted, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the appellant/complainant in person, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The appellant/complainant submitted that the District Forum did not appreciate the pain and sufferings suffered by her due to the indulgence into unfair trade practices by using an expired product, for which, the Opposite Parties were liable to be heavily penalized for playing with her health. She further submitted that the Opposite Parties complied with the order passed by the District Forum and sent the cheque alongwith the letter dated 02.06.2015 (Annexure A-1). She further submitted that the District Forum granted inadequate relief and prayed that the same should be enhanced.

10.            After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions, advanced by the appellant/complainant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

11.            The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellant/complainant is entitled to the enhancement of relief granted by the District Forum. Admittedly, the complainant joined the slimming program with the Opposite Parties, in November, 2013, by paying an amount of Rs.33,400/- but due to unhygienic conditions at their centre, she suffered Herpes Zoster (Annexure C-1) and, therefore, discontinued further sessions after attending the course for about two months. To prove this, the complainant also produced on record Annexure C-1 i.e. OPD slip dated 28.01.2014 and Certificate dated 10.10.2014 issued by the doctor, in which, the said doctor had mentioned that “She may have contracted the disease from another person suffering from Chickenpox/Shingles”.  It is proved from Annexure C-5 that the Opposite Parties offered the transfer of remaining unused amount of Rs.26,000/- to the Beauty Section. As per the allegation of the appellant/complainant, during this beauty treatment, an expired product was used on her by the Opposite Parties and to prove this, she had also filed photographs of the expired empty sachet used by them on her (Annexure C-2). Annexure C-3 (Colly.) are the copies of emails exchanged between the parties, with a request to refund the amount but when they failed to refund the same, she lodged DDR No.30 dated 06.09.2014 (Annexure C-4) against M/s VLCC (Opposite Parties). The stand taken by the Opposite Parties, before the District Forum, that as per their terms and conditions (at page No.32 & 33 of District Forum file), which was duly accepted and signed by the complainant, the amount paid by her     was   not     refundable, as    the    same was to be utilized within 80 days but due to      goodwill gesture, they offered to transfer the                                           balance amount of Rs.26,000/- to another program of the beauty clinic, which was accepted by her. From the averments made by the appellant/complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant failed to produce any document/evidence on record, which could show that the doctor advised her not to continue the slimming program with specific mention of its unhygienic conditions and, as such, the District Forum rightly held that the complainant failed to produce any evidence to corroborate her allegations in this regard. It is also pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties fully complied with the order passed by the District Forum, as mentioned above, and paid the entire amount of Rs.38,000/- (Rs.26000/- + Rs.7000/- + Rs.5000/-) through cheque bearing No.029375 dated 27.05.2015 alongwith letter dated 02.06.2015 to the complainant.  So, we are of the considered view that the appropriate relief was granted by the District Forum and the complainant is not entitled for enhancement of the same.  

12.            In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. In our considered opinion, the amount of Rs.7,000/-, awarded by the District Forum, on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment, by no stretch of imagination, could be said to be inadequate or meagre. On the other hand, the relief granted by the District Forum, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, could be said to be adequate, reasonable and fair. The District Forum was not required to enrich the complainant, at the hands of the service provider/Opposite Parties. Since, the relief granted by the District Forum is adequate, reasonable, fair and commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not warrant any enhancement. The submission of the appellant/complainant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.            In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

14.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

15.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

30.06.2015                                                                 Sd/- 

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER