38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, September 12, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Business

VLCC To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation To Fat Loss Client For Negligence

By LawStreet News Network      22 January, 2020 11:01 PM      0 Comments
VLCC To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation To Fat Loss Client For Negligence

Well knows beauty clinic VLCC has been ordered to pay Rs. 1 lakh compensation to a fat loss client who had sustained second-degree burn injuries while undergoing a fat reduction treatment offered by them at their Kolkata clinic by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata unit in the case of Anna Louise Correia v. VLCC Health Care LtdOrder to this effect has been given by Honble Mr. Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President, and other Honble members Mrs. Sahana Ahmed Basu and Mr. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly on January 14, 2020. 

Facts of the case are as following: 

The complainant in the case was influenced by the attractive packages advertised along with interviews of former clients on Social Media as well as daily newspapers thereby approaching VLCC, Kolkata unit for availing their services in order to reduce her body fat within a stipulated period of time. She had spent a total Rs. 5,13,879.72/- till the month of February, 2018 on various treatments, but had not got satisfactory results. She was assured in the beginning that the whole procedure will be conducted with the assistance of any medical expert and/ or doctor, but it was not the case, procedure was conducted by one staff member only. 

One day while undergoing the treatment, she was left totally shattered when she sustained pain on her right side of lower abdominal area. Ultimately, she has to contact a private doctor for treatment. Following which, she was unable to do her normal activities which caused her intolerable pain and mental depression. She approached the clinic for refund of the money due to non-satisfactory service on their part, but they didnt agree. Hence, she approached the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The question that came before the forum for consideration was whether there was any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the clinic during the treatment for which the complainant suffered loss and injury on her right side of lower abdominal area.

Interestingly, the complainant had signed a consent form prior to commencement of the treatment, and she was assured that the treatment which she is undergoing has no side effects, which was countered by VLCC by arguing that the result of treatment may vary from person to person and any post treatment adverse effect does not mean that they have done any wrong treatment in a negligent manner.

Findings of the Forum: 

It was found that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of VLCC as during the treatment, no expert was present and attendant who had given treatment to the complainant was also not highly skilled. Hence the forum concluded that the complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,00,069/-, the amount she had spent on the particular treatment, which caused side effects on her body, out of many treatments she had taken. While outlining the importance of awarding compensation bench reasoned that award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is reasonable or commensurate with the loss, injury, mental & physical pain and agony suffered by the complainant and it would adequately meet the ends of justice.

VLCC has been asked to pay the full amount ordered within 45 days of passing of the order. 

Author: Parth Thummar 



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-disapproves-kerala-hc-directly-entertaining-pre-arrest-bails
Trending Judiciary
SC disapproves Kerala HC directly entertaining pre arrest bails [Read Order]

SC slams Kerala HC practice of directly entertaining anticipatory bail pleas, says litigants must first approach Sessions Court unless in exceptional cases.

11 September, 2025 01:58 PM
sc-quashes-cheque-dishonour-complaint-filed-5-days-late-rules-30-day-limit-under-ni-act-is-mandatory
Trending Judiciary
SC Quashes Cheque Dishonour Complaint Filed 5 Days Late, Rules 30-Day Limit Under NI Act is Mandatory [Read Order]

SC quashes cheque dishonour complaint filed 5 days late, rules 30-day limit under NI Act is mandatory and delay needs proper condonation process.

11 September, 2025 02:32 PM

TOP STORIES

wife-living-in-adultery-not-entitled-to-maintenance-rules-delhi-court
Trending Judiciary
Wife Living In Adultery Not Entitled To Maintenance, Rules Delhi Court

Delhi court denies maintenance to woman under Section 125 CrPC, ruling that a wife proven to be living in adultery is disqualified from claiming support.

06 September, 2025 06:32 PM
sc-dissolves-marriage-faced-deadlock-over-1951-model-antique-hand-made-classic-rolls-royce-car
Trending Judiciary
SC dissolves marriage faced deadlock over 1951 model antique hand-made classic Rolls Royce car [Read Order]

SC dissolves marriage invoking Article 142 after dispute over 1951 Rolls Royce; man agrees to pay ₹2.25 cr in mediated settlement.

06 September, 2025 06:44 PM
sc-notice-to-ed-on-plea-by-journalist-in-money-laundering-case
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to ED on plea by journalist in money laundering case

SC issues notice to Gujarat govt & ED on plea of ex-‘The Hindu’ journalist Mahesh Langa seeking bail in money laundering case linked to alleged fraud.

08 September, 2025 02:37 PM
absence-of-cheque-bank-transfer-or-receipt-wont-always-negate-cash-transaction-sc
Trending Judiciary
Absence of cheque, bank transfer or receipt won't always negate cash transaction: SC [Read Order]

Absence of cheque, transfer or receipt doesn’t negate cash deal; promissory note & oral statement can establish enforceable debt: SC

08 September, 2025 02:43 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email