Consumer Commission upholds forum's decision

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Advertisement

Chandigarh, August 11

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has upheld the decision of the District Consumer Forum directing VLCC Health Care Limited, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, to refund Rs 75,500 and pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 to a Panchkula resident after holding the centre guilty of deficiency in service.

The centre has filed an appeal against the order of the District Consumer Forum dated November 11, 2021. In the complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum, Vijay Aggarwal, a resident of Sector 6, Panchkula, said he took a package from the centre and paid an advance of Rs 50,000 to it in March 2015.

He said the centre promised to help reduce five-kg weight and 4-inch loss of tummy circumference within one month. He undertook 30 sessions after December 16, 2016, but there was no progress on weight loss. He could lose 1 kg weight by diet control only.

He said he lost his patience and sought refund of the amount. Aggarwal alleged that he was shown a costly imported machine through which treatment would be done and he was induced fraudulently to take up the programme and money back guarantee. He again paid another amount of Rs 28,000 on March 31, 2017. Still, there was no desired result.

Denying all charges, the centre said the complainant was satisfied with the services. Therefore, he took new treatment for slimming and weight loss three times in 2016. If the complainant had any issue with any of the services, then he would have not purchased other plans. The complainant neither remained regular for the treatment nor followed his diet as per the terms of the treatment.

Harsh Nagra, counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the appeal and prayed for its dismissal.

After hearing the arguments, the State Commission, comprising president Raj Shekhar Attri and member Rajesh K Arya, said the appellant was misguiding the consumer by a misleading advertisement. The order of the District Forum did not require any interference and dismissed the appeal of the centre.