{"id":31529,"date":"2026-10-02T11:15:45","date_gmt":"2026-10-02T11:15:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=31529"},"modified":"2026-10-02T11:15:45","modified_gmt":"2026-10-02T11:15:45","slug":"paid-for-10-weight-loss-sessions-but-attended-only-4-how-woman-still-won-rs-86200-from-wellness-clinic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=31529","title":{"rendered":"Paid for 10 weight-loss sessions but attended only 4: How woman still won Rs 86,200 from wellness clinic"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Paid<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
AI generated image used for representative purpose<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: A Tamil Nadu district consumer commission has directed a wellness clinic to refund Rs 51,200 to a woman who paid for a 10 session cryotherapy package but attended only four sessions. The commission also awarded her Rs 25,000 for mental agony and inconvenience and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs. The order was passed on September 22, 2026.Why did the woman approach the consumer commission?<\/span>According to the commission order, S Mayadevi saw an advertisement for weight reduction on social media and was contacted by staff of VeCura Wellness Clinic, who allegedly gave her assurances about the programme. She approached its Trichy branch in October 2024 and later opted for a 10 session cryotherapy package.The complainant paid Rs 51,200 towards the programme and also took loans through Bajaj Finance and EZFINANZ for payments connected with the treatment. She attended four sessions and alleged that she developed cold, running nose and fever during the treatment and that the clinic did not respond properly to her complaints. She also alleged that she gained weight instead of losing it.Mayadevi alleged that the clinic had promised 100 percent weight reduction and its advertisements amounted to an unfair trade practice. She sought a refund, compensation for mental agony and other relief.What did the consumer commission find?<\/span>The bench comprising President T Sekar <\/span>and member K Velumani <\/span>noted that the clinic had admitted that the complainant opted for the 10 session package and attended four sessions. However, it had not produced treatment records, session reports, progress or weight charts, pre- or post-treatment assessments, consent forms or treatment protocols to show what services were provided.The commission added that the clinic could not simply retain the entire amount when a substantial part of the package remained unused.\u201cThe first opposite party was required to establish the nature and extent of services rendered and the basis for retaining the amount received,\u201d the bench said.It, however, did not accept all allegations raised by the complainant. The commission said the advertisement containing the alleged 100 percent guarantee had not been produced. It also said there were no medical records establishing that her cold, running nose and fever were directly caused by the cryotherapy treatment.The commission then noted that the weight reduction cannot necessarily be treated as a guaranteed result because it can depend on lifestyle, compliance and physiological factors. But the clinic was still required to provide the service covered by the package for which it had received payment.\u201cThe first opposite party has failed to establish satisfactory performance of the paid service package and has failed to justify retention of the amount paid for the service which remained incomplete. Such failure amounts to deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019,\u201d the commission further added.The commission held that Mayadevi had established deficiency in service against VeCura Wellness Clinic. It dismissed the complaint against Bajaj Finance and EZFINANZ, saying their role as financiers did not by itself make them responsible for the clinic’s service.The clinic was directed to:<\/p>\n

\n