Back
Consumer Commission Directs Diet Clinic to Refund Fees
The , in a recent ruling, has held a private diet clinic accountable for service irregularities, siding with a consumer who received subpar services after paying for a premium, personalized wellness package. The Bench, presided over by President Pawanjit Singh and Member B.M. Sharma, directed the clinic to refund the deposited amount along with interest and compensation.
The Breakdown of the Dispute The complainant, Meghna Nehra, sought the services of in , lured by promises of a personalized daily dietary program. She paid an enrollment fee of Rs. 28,000. However, the complainant alleged that the experience failed to match the initial sales pitch. Instead of the promised customized care, she was provided with a standard, non-personalized diet chart.
The situation deteriorated quickly when the complainant's attempts to secure follow-up appointments and clarifications were met with delays and, ultimately, silence. When she requested a refund, the clinic—which had allegedly acknowledged their liability earlier—abruptly changed its stance, citing a despite no such enrollment form being formally executed in the eyes of the consumer.
Arguments from Both Sides The clinic argued that they had fulfilled their end of the bargain by providing the first week’s diet plan within two days of receipt of payment. Their defense rested on the argument that professional dietary results require long-term consistency, and therefore, their fees were non-refundable to cover the professional services rendered. They also emphasized that the complainant had signed an enrollment form acknowledging these terms.
Conversely, the complainant argued that the clinic’s failure to provide the personalized service they sold was a blatant case of "" and "." She maintained that the clinic’s inconsistency in providing the agreed-upon plan and their subsequent refusal to refund the service rendered the relationship untenable.
Key Observations of the Commission The Commission scrutinized the transaction and the timeline of communication between the parties. The Bench observed that the clinic’s inability to address the consumer’s concerns within three days of enrollment was highly problematic.
In its ruling, the commission noted:
"It is clear that the OPs, after receiving a substantial payment from the complainant, failed to provide the promised personalized diet service. This amounts to on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, they are liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant."
Regarding the clinic's failure to resolve the grievance despite having the complainant's banking information, the commission observed:
"The OPs attempted to delay the matter and asked the complainant to wait. This clearly shows that the OPs failed to attend to the complainant’s concerns properly, despite receiving a substantial amount."
Final Ruling and Implications The Commission partly allowed the , ordering the clinic to: 1. Refund the full amount of Rs. 28,000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of payment. 2. Pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 7,000 toward compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
The order stipulates that the payment must be made within 45 days. Should the clinic fail to comply, a of 12% per annum will apply. This case serves as a poignant reminder that business policies regarding "non-refundability" cannot shield service providers from liability when the core promised services—especially those marketed as "personalized"—are not delivered.
