RUZAN KHAMBATTA Vs. LALIT BEAUTY CENTRE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 31.01.2017 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 1546 of 2010.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that she had purchased a product of respondent no. 2 from respondent no. 1 L'Oreal Happy Derm Skin Exhilarating Moisturizer Cream' for her personal use. She had applied the same on her face and immediately, thereafter she suffered from severe allergic reaction. There was burning, redness and rashes. She had undergone unbearable pain and itching, due to which she has to undergo heavy medical treatment. Respondent no. 1 was informed over telephone and they offered her to pay Rs.22,000/- to Rs.25,000/-, which she refused. Due to allergic reaction, she had to cancel her trip to Singapore and her marriage proposal got postponed. She was called upon for a compromise and settlement of Rs.1.00 lakh. As the respondent did not agree she filed a consumer complaint no.326 of 2007 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City at Ahmedabad (the District Forum') with the following prayer for a compensation of Rs.1.00lakh with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation and further cost of Rs.20,000/-.

(3.) Respondent no.1 denied that the petitioner had purchased the L'Oreal Happy Derm Skin Exhilarating Moisturizer Cream' for her personal use. It was evident from the copy of the cash memo filed that it cannot be ascertained from the same as to who was the purchaser and what had been bought. After receiving the complaint the respondent had requested the petitioner to undergo a skin patch test to determine the cause of the reaction as suggested by respondent no. 2. However, the petitioner refused to undergo the same. It was also denied that they have offered Rs.25,000/- as compensation at any stage. It was further stated that the petitioner had failed to produce the bill for L'Oreal Happy Derm Skin Exhilarating Moisturizer Cream', therefore, the complainant was not a consumer. The bill produced by the petitioner was not in the name of the petitioner and further the product mentioned in the said bill was of a compact powder and not a moisturising cream.