VLCC Not Liable For Complainant's Failure To Attend Scheduled Laser Sessions, South Mumbai District Commission Dismisses Complaint

Brief Facts:

The Complainant discovered an advertisement from VLCC Health Care Ltd. offering full body laser hair removal services for six sessions at a discounted price of Rs. 50,000/-, taxes included. The offer included treatment for various body parts and promised significant hair reduction. Enticed by the offer, the Complainant paid Rs. 57,500/- expecting satisfactory results.

The Complainant attended her first session followed by a second session. However, during the second session, she suffered burns due to rushed treatment by a doctor. Subsequently, the Complainant faced multiple appointment cancellations due to machine unavailability and staff shortages which caused inconvenience to her.

Despite efforts to adhere to the treatment schedule, delays persisted. By November 6, 2017, the Complainant only completed four sessions. Even when appointments were rescheduled, they often conflicted with the Complainant's commitments.

After the treatment, the Complainant noticed increased hair growth in areas previously treated, particularly on her face. Instead of the promised hair reduction, she experienced darker and coarser hair growth.

The adverse effects of the treatment significantly impacted the Complainant's self-esteem which affected her social life, especially after her marriage in April 2018. Despite grievances raised to VLCC through legal notices, no satisfactory resolution was reached. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against VLCC.

In response, VLCC contended that the Complainant's scheduling preferences, particularly for weekend appointments, caused delays. It argued that the Complainant availed all sessions as per her availability which absolved it of liability for any perceived lack of benefit from the treatment sessions.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant argued that although she received five and a half sessions, the services rendered were inadequate and did not provide the expected benefits. However, upon review of the evidence, particularly an email, the District Commission noted that the Complainant requested appointments exclusively on Saturdays and Sundays, which the VLCC could not accommodate due to staff and machine unavailability on those days. It noted that this preference for weekend appointments was not agreed upon by both parties, and it was not even guaranteed by VLCC. Therefore, the bench held that the delay in treatment sessions could not be solely attributed to the VLCC's negligence.

The District Commission noted that the scheduling of the treatment sessions was at a significant gap between each session, spanning over a year. However, it held that this gap was primarily due to the Complainant's insistence on weekend appointments.

Regarding the Complainant's grievances about incomplete treatment during the final session, the District Commission held that there was no substantial evidence presented to support these claims. Therefore, it dismissed the complaint.

Case Title: Jheel Nakul Kanungo Nee vs VLCC Health Care Ltd.

Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 293/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: None (Complainant in person)

Advocate for the Opposite Party: Lograj Nadar