Kolors Ordered to Refund Rs 1.05 L to Customer

admin

Kolors Ordered to Refund Rs 1.05 L to Customer

Hyderabad: On Thursday, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (TSCDRC) dismissed an appeal filed by Kolors Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd and upheld an order by the Medak district commission that ordered the company to refund Rs 1.05 lakh to a customer who was not satisfied with Kolors’ weight loss treatment programme.State Commission in-charge president Meena Ramanathan and member-judicial V.V. Seshubabu also ordered the company to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 for litigation costs to the complainant. Besides, the commission directed health authorities, including the Hyderabad district medical and health officer and the director of Vaidya Vidhan Parishad, to verify whether or not Kolors held valid licences and employed qualified medical professionals for its weight loss treatments. A report on their findings is to be submitted to the commission by March 17.A 27-year-old woman had sought treatment for overall body fat loss at the company’s Miyapur branch. She claimed that the treatment for fat reduction did not result in major weight loss after eight months, and alleged rude behavior from the staff.She moved the Medak district consumer disputes redressal commission at Sangareddy in February 2023. The panel ruled in favour of the complainant in August 2023, ordering Kolors to refund the amount with a 9 per cent annual interest from the payment date and a 3 per cent penalty for non-compliance beyond 45 days. Kolors appealed the decision with the state commission.In their appeal, Kolors argued that the client had signed up for the treatment after being briefed about the terms and conditions, including the absence of a guarantee of results. The clinic claimed she had attended several sessions and initially expressed satisfaction with the programme. They alleged that her irregular attendance led to unsatisfactory results.The state commission observed inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the company and questioned the validity of their certifications and operational licences. It warned against misleading advertisements targeting vulnerable individuals.



Source link