The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of the weight reduction programme and the need for evidence to support claims for additional compensation.

ORDER

Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Presiding Member - This revision petition has been filed by Ms. Shipra Sachdeva for enhancement of compensation awarded by the order dated 29.4.2008 in First Appeal No. 93 of 2008 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, wherein, the appeal of the petitioner herein has been allowed. Complaint No. 542 of 2007 against VLCC Health Care Limited filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 17.1.2008.

2. Brief facts of the case are:

Ms. Shipra Sachdeva took a package for reduction of her weight to the extent of 20 kgs. after reading an advertisement of VLCC Health Care Ltd. in the newspapers. She deposited Rs. 33,060 and submitted that she was assured that her weight would be reduced by 20 kgs. within 5-8 months. She contended that her weight did not reduce in spite of attending exercises, having tucks and following diets as advised by the respondents. After the programme, she obtained another package and deposited Rs. 6,480. After a lapse of nine months her weight remained more or less the same. She averred that she had to stay in a guest house as a paying guest to join the programme and that she wanted to get married after loosing the weight. It is contended that it is an unfair trade practice adopted by respondents by giving an advertisement that she could reduce her weight by 20 kgs. within the said period. District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that results of each programme vary from person to person depending upon the composition of individual body, health status, metabolism and other factors including diet and lifestyle. State Commission allowed her appeal and directed respondents to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of Rs. 25,000 as compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order or else it would carry interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of actual payment.

3. In this revision petition, amicus curiae appointed by the Commission on behalf of the petitioner prayed for refund of the amount of Rs. 39,540 being package fee paid by the complainant along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its deposit till realization and further expenditure of Rs. 35,334 incurred by her for staying at Mohali and also Rs. 8,260 towards travelling expenses. She further claimed Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for mental agony and for making further prospects of her marriage bleak and another Rs. 5,00,000 compensation for loss of further higher studies and Rs. 5,500 towards litigation expenses. After going through the record and order of the State Commission, we find, that in the first package for reduction of 20 kgs. she has achieved a result of weight loss of 12.7 kgs. and in the second programme 1.5 kg. That, she has lost weight and again gained some in the next programme and that she was irregular in attending the sessions and has not correctly followed the diet chart.

4. In our view, State Commission has fairly awarded a reasonable amount to the complainant but her revision petition, seeking various directions of payments under various heads, is highly exaggerated. It is not a case where she never lost any weight at all. The petitioner is fully aware of the terms and conditions printed on the programme that the programme results vary from person to person depending on the dietary habits, lifestyle, health status, metabolism and strict adherence to the guidelines given by the respondents. Petitioner has also absented herself in between the programme and hence it cannot be construed as deficiency in service on part of the respondents. The complainant has availed of the service and lost some weight and compensation sought for loss of prospects of marriage or loss for her inability to pursue further studies are exorbitant and the petitioner has not led any evidence to justify the same.

5. We do not find this revision petition fit for admission and accordingly dismiss the same. The order of the State Commission is conf