A consumer court in Punjab has directed an Ayurvedic clinic and two of its representatives to refund ₹21,000 along with interest and pay ₹5,000 as compensation after finding them guilty of unfair trade practice over an alleged height enhancement treatment that failed to produce the promised results.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur, passed the order on June 3, 2026, holding that the clinic failed to contest the complaint despite receiving notice and did not rebut the evidence presented by the complainant.
According to the complaint, the woman approached the Ayurvedic clinic after seeing an advertisement that claimed its treatment could increase height.
She alleged that one of the clinic's representatives assured her that her son's height would increase after taking a three-month course of medicines. The representative reportedly promised that visible results would appear within 10 to 15 days and assured her that the entire amount would be refunded if the treatment did not work.
Relying on these assurances, she purchased the initial three-month course for ₹5,000.
However, after completing the treatment, her son's height allegedly showed no improvement.
When the complainant contacted the clinic regarding the lack of results, she alleged that the representatives persuaded her to purchase another medicine worth ₹6,000, assuring her that the earlier ₹5,000 would be refunded along with the new parcel.
According to the complaint, she agreed and paid the additional amount. However, she neither received the promised refund nor observed any improvement after using the second course of medicines.
The complainant further alleged that instead of honouring the refund commitment, the clinic repeatedly sought additional payments, claiming that the refund process was delayed due to technical issues in the company's payment system.
Believing these assurances, she allegedly made several more payments between November 19 and November 24, 2025.
In total, she stated that she paid ₹21,000, including ₹19,000 through online transfers and ₹2,000 in cash, but received neither a refund nor any benefit from the treatment.
The clinic and its representatives did not appear before the Commission despite being served notice. The matter therefore proceeded ex parte.
As the clinic and its representatives neither appeared before the Commission nor challenged the complainant's evidence, the Commission proceeded on the basis of the unrebutted material available on record.
A bench comprising President Kiranjit Kaur Arora and Member Suman Khanna observed that the opposite parties had failed to challenge the complainant's claims or submit any evidence in their defence.
The Commission stated:
"The opposite parties did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by her as aforesaid and as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either the said opposite parties admit the claim of the complainant or have nothing to say in the matter."
Holding that the clinic had engaged in unfair trade practices, the Commission partly allowed the complaint.
It directed the clinic and its representatives to:
Refund ₹21,000 to the complainant.
Pay 6% annual interest on the refunded amount from March 2, 2026, the date the complaint was filed, until the amount is realized.
Pay ₹5,000 as consolidated compensation towards mental agony, pain, harassment, and litigation expenses.
Comply with the order within 45 days of receiving its copy.
"The opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice. So the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs 21,000 along with interest 6% per annum from filing of present complaint i.e. 2.3.2026 till its realisation to the complainant."
The ruling reinforces that businesses making health-related claims and refund promises can face legal consequences under consumer protection laws if they fail to fulfil their commitments or engage in unfair trade practices.
(Rh/ARC)
