Case Law Details
VLCC Health Care Limited Vs Vijay Aggarwal (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
The act of allurement or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellants, by way of misleading emails and advertisement(s), is further established from the emails placed on record by the respondent i.e. Annexure C-8, email dated 26.06.2016 vide which one Tanya on behalf of the appellants, assured the respondent that the respondent would be more clear & determined towards the results. Not only this, vide email dated 10.03.2015, Annexure C-3, the appellants informed the respondent that their professionals would guide him during the program to achieve the committed results and on an average, with medical conditions, the respondent should be able to lose 3-4 kgs in month’s time in case, he is regular with the program. No doubt, the respondent visited the appellants regularly and does what he was told to do coupled with the diet plan as prescribed to him, which did not bring any fruitful results. In our concerted view, the Ld. District Commission rightly held the appellants deficient in not providing proper services in the form of expected/desired results as weight reduction, wasting precious time and energy of the respondent by forcing him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation by non-refunding the amount paid as guaranteed. The appellants are very much held liable to refund the amount paid by the respondent purely on the basis of their own advertisement, Annexure C-1, saying “loose 4 Kg in 30 days or take your money back”, which squarely falls under the definition of ‘misleading advertisement’ as defined in Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The act of the appellants of giving false assurances on one hand by way of misleading advertisements and on the other hand, obtaining declaration from the consumers qua no guarantee/assurance regarding the result and outcome of the programme, is a clear example of unfair trade practices adopted by them, for which, the consumers (respondent in this case), could not be made to suffer at the hands of the appellants.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH
This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties, namely, M/s VLCC Health Care Limited (appellants herein) against order dated 11.11.2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short ‘District Commission’], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.267 of 2018 filed by the complainant, namely, Sh. Vijay Aggarwal (respondent herein) has been partly allowed by the District Commission in the following manner:-
“11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
