Woman wins Rs 35,000 after clinic gives ‘standard’ plan instead of ‘personalised’ diet

Diet clinic’s tall claim

The woman, a resident of Chandigarh, engaged the services of the clinic allegedly after their representative made some “tall” claims that she would get a personalised daily dietary package.  Accordingly, she made a payment of Rs 28,000 on August 26, 2024, to get the said diet. 

Instead of a personalised plan, the woman alleged that she was given a standard diet chart and denied appointments, with her requests for alternatives and follow-ups going unanswered.

The woman stated that the clinic initially admitted liability and asked for her bank details to process a refund, but later denied having any refund policy at all, even though no enrollment form had been executed at that stage.

The woman was represented by advocate Arjun Dosanj, who argued that despite paying Rs 28,000, his client was given only a standard diet chart and that her repeated requests for appointments and alternatives went unanswered.

Non-refundable fee

The healthcare and wellness clinic, in its written response, argued that the case should be dismissed because the woman did not have a valid legal reason to sue it.

They admitted that the woman engaged their services on August 26, 2024, and claimed the first week’s diet package was duly conveyed to her on August 28, 2024.

As evidence, the clinic shared WhatsApp chats from August 28, 2024, to prove the woman asked for her money back despite signing an enrollment agreement two days earlier.

The clinics, represented by advocate Gurcharan Singh, argued that the woman had signed an enrollment form after being fully informed of the terms and conditions, and that the fee was non-refundable since it included several taxes already deposited with the authorities.

‘Narrow dispute’

The commission noted that the woman had paid Rs 28,000 for the diet package, and that the dispute was “narrow”: whether the clinic’s failure to send a personalised chart and refusal to refund amounted to deficiency in service.

It observed that just three days after receiving the payment, when the woman sought an appointment on August 29, 2024, the clinic “attempted to delay the matter and asked the complainant to wait”.

The commission held that this showed that the clinic failed to attend to the woman’s concerns properly despite receiving a “substantial” amount, and that they did not refund the money even after obtaining her account details.

Penalty on clinic

The commission ordered the clinic to refund Rs 28,000 to the woman, carrying a simple interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of payment, along with the payment of Rs 7,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and litigation costs.

It was added that the diet clinic should pay the said compensation within 45 days, failing which the amount will attract penal interest at 12 per cent per annum instead of 9 per cent, till realisation.

Takeaway

This ruling highlights that wellness clinics cannot make tall promises of personalised service to attract customers and then fall back on generic packages and non-refundable clauses when they fail to deliver.

Consumers facing grievances may contact their respective state consumer helplines (Chandigarh helpline: 1800 300 11 007) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Written by Avinash Verma (Avinash is an intern with The Indian Express)