Muscle Injury Due To Excessive Training, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Raw House Fitness, Its Gym Trainer Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant joined the gym operated by Raw House Fitness (“Gym”) by paying a membership fee of Rs. 4,500/- via UPI. Initially, the Complainant worked out with light weights to avoid injury. However, on the third day, the Gym Trainer instructed him to use heavier weights for an extended period and pushed him excessively. During this session, the Complainant repeatedly informed the Gym Trainer that he was experiencing difficulty breathing and felt like he might faint. Despite this, the Gym Trainer insisted he continue and made him exercise for four different body parts. As a result, the Complainant's body could not handle the excessive muscle strain.

Subsequently, the Complainant noticed that his urine was brown. A doctor advised him to seek medical attention and drink plenty of water to prevent kidney damage, suspecting 'Rhabdomyolysis'. Following this advice, his urine began to return to a whitish-brown colour after about 24 hours. The Complainant sought a second opinion at Nulife Hospital in Sector 115, Mohali, where tests confirmed he was suffering from Rhabdomyolysis due to muscle injury. He attributed this injury to the rash and negligent actions of the Gym Trainer who forced him to over-exercise.

The Complainant had been assured that the Gym had trained professionals to help him maintain good health, but the Gym Trainer compelled him to over-exercise, leading to his condition. He claimed that the contract's terms and conditions were one-sided and amounted to unfair trade practice, constituting a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Despite several requests, the Gym and the Gym Trainer did not resolve the dispute. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).

The Gym and the Gym Trainer did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Gym and the Gym Trainer to pay Rs. 4050/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 7,000/- compensation for deficiency in service. Dissatisfied by the awarded compensation, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”).

In response, the Gym argued that the Complainant violated the membership agreement terms by not following the Gym Trainer's instructions and claimed that no one could force a person to continue exercising against their will. It further contended that the Complainant's symptoms were due to dehydration and general weakness, not Rhabdomyolysis and that the Gym had trained and certified trainers providing proper advice and services. On the other hand, the Gym Trainer failed to appear before the State Commission.

Observations of the State Commission:

The State Commission observed that the terms and conditions of the membership agreement were one-sided and detrimental to the rights of the Complainant. The agreement attempted to release the Gym and associated entities from liability for any kind of injury, disability, death, loss, or damage that might occur, including incidents on the premises. Such broad waivers were deemed unfair to consumers, as they could absolve the Gym from responsibility even in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. The State Commission noted that consumers often have less negotiating power and might feel pressured to accept these terms to gain access to the Gym.

The State Commission reviewed the medical records of the Complainant, which showed that he was diagnosed with Rhabdomyolysis after experiencing symptoms following a strenuous workout at the Gym. It noted that the District Commission had previously denied the claim, suggesting other possible causes for Rhabdomyolysis. However, the State Commission found that the Complainant's condition was due to excessive exercise or training at the Gym. The Gym Trainer failed to exercise proper supervision and expertise during the Complainant's initial workouts.

Therefore, the State Commission enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25,000/-. The State Commission also noted that the District Commission erred in not awarding litigation costs and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 7,000/- for litigation expenses. The impugned order was modified to include these directives, with interest accruing on the amounts if not paid within 45 days.

The appeal was partly accepted, and the respondents were directed to refund ₹4,050/- with interest, pay ₹25,000/- in compensation, and cover ₹7,000/- in litigation expenses.

Case Title: Sh. Simranjeet Singh Sindhu vs Manager, Raw House Fitness and Anr.

Case No.: Appeal No. 161 of 2024

Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant: None (Appellant in person)

Advocate for the Respondent: Raul Vohra (for Manager, Raw House Fitness)

Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2024