V S MALIK Vs. AVIK MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Dr. V.S. Malik (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No.315/2007 wherein Avik Mukherjee and another were Respondents.

(2.) In his complaint before the District Forum, Respondent/Complainant contended that he had hired the services of Petitioner doctor for hair transplant surgery in August, 2004 for which he paid Rs.10,000 in advance and a balance of Rs.30,000 through bankers cheque on August 8,2004. Although he was assured that the entire procedure would be completed in one mega sitting on 29.8.2004, this did not happen due to failure of second part of the procedure; As a result one part of the Respondent's head could not be covered by the hair transplant and he had to pay a further amount of Rs.5,000 for a micro weft to cover this portion. Even the micro weft was found to be cheap and ill-fitting and, therefore, respondent refused to accept the same and sought a refund of Rs. 5,000 which was declined. When the stitches on part of the procedure which had been completed was removed on 8.9.2004, it was found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, respondent asked the Petitioner to refund the unspent amount of the total payment paid by him which the Petitioner promised to do but till date it he has not done so. Aggrieved this. Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and requested that petitioner/doctor be directed to pay him Rs. 45,000 @ 18% interest from the date of payment and Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for the physical trauma and mental torture undergone by him for the failed operation which has left a permanent scar on his head.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the petitioner who contended that the procedure was being successfully undertaken but it was the respondent who did not want to continue and requested to postpone it for the next day. Thereafter, Respondent did not turn up for the remaining procedure of the hair transplant. Regarding the micro weft, Petitioner contended that it was got prepared from an expert and there was no deficiency in the same.