In a notable case at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Central Mumbai (Case No. CC/23/232), the complainant, a customer of VLCC Health Care Ltd., alleged negligence and unfair trade practices after suffering burn injuries during a laser hair removal session. The complainant, whose name remains confidential, reported a painful and adverse reaction shortly after the treatment began at a VLCC clinic. The service provider, VLCC Health Care Ltd., failed to refund the advance payment of ₹47,200, which led the complainant to seek legal redress.
Facts of the Case:
The complainant had booked a seven-session laser hair removal treatment at a VLCC branch and paid the full amount upfront on February 25, 2023. However, the treatment was abruptly halted when she experienced a burning sensation on her skin, which worsened despite the technician’s application of a moisturizing cream. After notifying VLCC the next day, the complainant was denied the opportunity to consult with a doctor, and the company refused a refund, offering only a credit note for alternative services. Dissatisfied, the complainant turned to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for relief, claiming both financial and emotional distress.
Legal Issues:
The Consumer Court, presided over by Hon’ble President Mrs. Vandana Mishra and Hon’ble Member Mr. Sanjay S. Jagdale, focused on three key legal issues in this case:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
VLCC argued that the case should not fall within the Mumbai jurisdiction since the company’s headquarters is located in New Delhi. However, the court upheld its jurisdiction under Section 34(2)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the complainant resides within Mumbai’s jurisdiction.
2. Deficiency in Service:
The court found that VLCC had been deficient in its service. The complainant submitted supporting evidence, including payment receipts and photos of burn injuries, establishing that the procedure lacked proper medical oversight and resulted in injury. The absence of a doctor at the clinic during the incident was noted, as laser hair removal, being a medical procedure, mandates supervision by a qualified dermatologist.
3. Unfair Trade Practice:
VLCC’s policy of offering a non-refundable credit note instead of a refund was deemed an unfair trade practice. The court held that the company could not impose its services on a dissatisfied customer, especially one who had experienced physical harm. Additionally, the court criticized VLCC’s failure to inform customers of potential side effects, branding the company’s non-refund policy as detrimental to customer interests.
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
In her remarks, President Mishra observed that “the Opposite Party cannot insist on acceptance of a credit note instead of refund” and highlighted that VLCC’s unilateral policy disregards customer rights, thus constituting an unfair trade practice. The court condemned VLCC’s actions as physically, emotionally, and financially harmful to the complainant, ordering significant compensation for damages.
Final Order:
1. Refund: VLCC Health Care Ltd. is directed to return the advance payment of ₹47,200 with 9% interest from the date of payment (February 25, 2023).
2. Compensation: The complainant was awarded ₹30,000 for the physical and emotional distress caused by VLCC’s deficient service.
3. Legal Costs: VLCC must also pay ₹10,000 towards the complainant’s legal costs.
The order was issued on November 5, 2024, with a compliance deadline of 45 days from receipt.
