Inferior Hair Products Led To Partial Baldness, Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Vedix Customised Ayurvedic Liable For Misleading Advertising

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Vishakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt G Venkateswari (President), Smt. P. Vijaya Durga (Member) and Sri Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Vedix Customized Ayurvedic liable for selling inferior quality hair oil, serum and shampoo which led to a partial baldness of the Complainant. The District Commission remarked that Vedix made false claims in its advertisement which led to the Complainant experiencing adverse effects. Brief Facts: Penumastsa Mounika Sravanthi (“Complainant”) came across a company named Vedix Customized Ayurvedic (“Vedix”) through social media advertisements on several platforms. Vedix claimed that its ayurvedic products can reduce hair fall and increase hair length. Intrigued by these claims, the Complainant visited their website, contacted them and inquired about their products. Vedix's representatives contacted the Complainant, emphasizing the advantages of Vedix hair products and assuring a refund if the products did not meet expectations. Convinced by these representations, she placed an order for hair oil, hair serum, and hair shampoo for one month, paying Rs. 999/-. Later, the Complainant placed another order and paid Rs. 2997/- for the same products, thereby, making a total payment of Rs. 3,996/-. To the Complainant's surprise, she experienced an increase in hair fall, hair freezing, and roughening, contrary to the promised results. She communicated her concerns about hair loss through emails and phone calls to the Vedix team. Despite following the team's advice to continue using the products for a few more months, there was no improvement in terms of hair loss and quality of hair. When the Complainant sought a refund, Vedix offered only a partial amount of Rs. 1198/- for the used products. After losing almost 2/4th of her hair, she issued a notice to Vedix, demanding a refund of the product cost and compensation. The Complainant didn't receive any reply to her notices. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”). Vedix didn't appear before the District Commission and, therefore, was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission noted that after the Complainant started using Vedix hair products there was a considerable increase in hair fall over several months. Further, even after notifying Vedix about these issues, the team suggested dietary changes to the Complainant. However, despite the Complainant made changes to her diet, the hair fall didn't stop. According to the District Commission, these circumstances strongly indicated that Vedix engaged in the sale of inferior-quality hair oils, serums, and shampoos, thereby engaging in unfair trade practices as defined under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. According to Section 2(28), a "misleading advertisement" includes one that falsely describes the product or service, misrepresents the substance, quantity, or quality of the product or service, conveys express or implied representations that, if made by the manufacturer, seller, or service provider, would constitute an unfair trade practice, or deliberately conceals important information. The District Commission held that Vedix through their advertisements, presented a product that purportedly met specific standards and qualities. The Complainant, relying on these misleading advertisements, opted to use the hair products, only to discover that the representations were, in fact, false. The District Commission held that this intentional deception led customers, including the Complainant, to make decisions based on inaccurate information, ultimately resulting in their being misled and experiencing adverse effects from the use of the products. Therefore, the District Commission held that Vedix's conduct not only constituted a breach of consumer trust but also violated the provisions outlined in the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Consequently, the District Commission directed Vedix to pay an amount of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant. Case Title: Penumasta Mounika Sravanthi vs Vedix Customized Ayurvedic and Others. Case No.: CC/88/2022 Advocate for the Complainant: P. Sridhar Advocate for the Respondent: None Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Inferior Hair Products Led To Partial Baldness, Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Vedix Customised Ayurvedic Liable For Misleading Advertising

Smita Singh

Tags