No Relief Does Not Amount To Deficiency Of Service : Delhi District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Body Care

Brief facts:

The complainant visited the body care clinic (respondent) for face scar treatment, after reading their advertisements. After being convinced, the complainant booked hair, face and fat loss treatment programme for 7 to 8 months.

The complainant paid an advance payment of Rs.3,00,000/ and availed 6 sittings with the respondent. However, after the 5^th session the complainant suffered from pain and blisters on his face and swelling in mouth. Despite repeated complains and request, the respondent did not show any seriousness.

Even after sharing evidence of his adverse condition, the doctor's number was not shared. Additionally, the respondent demanded Rs.2,30,000/ for hair transplant and more facial treatment. The respondent did not even respond to the legal notice of refund sent on 29.02.2022 for giving wrong treatment and steroid application.

The complainant felt misled and trapped in cruel conspiracy hatched by the respondent. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission for refund of Rs.3,00,000/- with 18% interest, Rs.25,00,000/- for harassment and Rs.1,00,000/ as litigation cost.

As the respondent failed to appear, the commission proceeded ex parte.

Observation of the District Commission:

The Commission held that there was no evidence to prove that the respondent asked to pay Rs.2,30,000/. Further, the programme consisted of weight loss, face and hair treatment but the complaint is only for face treatment.

The commission ruled that there is no proof that the complainant was given steroids and there was no advertisement that claimed 100% benefit from the treatment. The photographs given by the complainant lacked dates and could not be considered as admissible evidence.

The commission remarked that if the complainant was unsure about the reputation of respondent then he shouldn't have paid such hefty amount. It also highlighted that in medical cases, no relief does not amount to deficiency in service or negligence. Reliance was placed on Om Parkash Sikka & Anr vs. IVY Hospital, Mohali, Punjab (CC No.195/2010), where it was held that “No cure is not a Negligence”.

Therefore, the District Commission dismissed the complaint against Body Care.

Case Title: Arun Kumar Takkar vs. The Body Care & Anr.

Case No: Complaint Case No. 350/2022

Date of Pronouncement: 21.11.2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order