Man wins Rs 5,000 after Ayurvedic clinic’s height growth treatment falls short

Treatment fails

• According to the complaint, the complainant approached the clinic after seeing its advertisement claiming to offer treatment for increasing height.
• She alleged that the clinic’s representative assured her that her son’s height would increase with treatment and persuaded her to purchase a three-month course of medicine for Rs 5,000, promising visible results within 10 to 15 days and a full refund if the treatment failed.
• The complainant stated that despite paying Rs 5,000 and completing the three-month course, her son’s height did not increase.
• When she complained, she was allegedly persuaded to purchase another medicine worth Rs 6,000 with the assurance that the earlier Rs 5,000 would be refunded along with the new parcel.
• It was pleaded that on the assurance of the opposite parties, the complainant again purchased the medicines and paid Rs 6,000 to the opposite parties; however, the earlier payment of Rs 5,000 was not refunded to her.
• It was alleged that even the medicine sent by the opposite parties of Rs 6,000 also did not have any effect on the complainant’s son.
• The complainant further alleged that instead of honouring the refund promise, the clinic’s representatives repeatedly demanded additional payments, claiming there were technical issues in the company’s refund system.
• Believing these assurances, she allegedly made several more payments between November 19 and November 24, 2025.
• She submitted that in all, she had paid Rs 21,000, including Rs 19,000 through online transfers and Rs 2,000 in cash. It was alleged that she neither received any refund nor any benefit from the medicines.
• Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant moved consumer forum.

‘Unfair trade practice’

The opposite parties failed to appear before the Commission despite service of notice and were proceeded against ex parte. The commission held the clinic liable for deficiency in service.

“The medicine sent by the opposite parties of Rs 6,000 also not make any effect on the son of the complainant. In this way, the opposite parties grab an amount of Rs 21,000 from the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties,” the order read.

The commission also noted that the opposite parties chose not to contest the proceedings or rebut the complainant’s evidence.

Holding the opposite parties guilty of unfair trade practice, the commission directed them to refund the amount paid by the complainant.

“The opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice. So the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs 21,000 along with interest 6% per annum from filing of present complaint i.e. 2.3.2026 till its realisation to the complainant,” the commission held.

It further directed them to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony, pain, harassment and litigation costs.

“The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs 5,000 as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order,” the order read.

Significance of this ruling

A key takeaway from the ruling is that businesses cannot attract consumers with unverified claims and refund assurances only to evade responsibility when the promised results fail to materialise. The order also emphasises that businesses risk adverse findings if they choose not to contest consumer complaints or rebut the evidence placed on record.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh contact: 0172-2700183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.