The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench presided over by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member), found Raw House Fitness, a gym in Chandigarh, and its trainer responsible for prescribing a strenuous workout regimen to a new member, resulting in a medical condition known as ‘Rhabdomyolysis’. The gym was also held accountable for enforcing unfair terms and conditions through its membership agreement.

Key Details

The complainant enrolled in Raw House Fitness gym by paying a membership fee of Rs. 4,500/- via UPI. Initially, the complainant engaged in workouts with lighter weights to prevent injury. However, on the third day, the gym trainer advised him to use heavier weights for an extended period and exerted excessive pressure. During this session, the complainant repeatedly notified the trainer about experiencing breathing difficulties and feeling faint. Despite this, the trainer insisted on continuing and subjected him to exercises targeting four different body parts. Consequently, the complainant’s body was unable to cope with the excessive muscle strain.

Later, the complainant observed his urine had turned brown. Upon consulting a doctor, he was advised to seek immediate medical attention and increase his water intake to prevent kidney damage, as ‘Rhabdomyolysis’ was suspected. Following these instructions, his urine gradually returned to a whitish-brown color within approximately 24 hours. Seeking a second opinion at Nulife Hospital in Sector 115, Mohali, confirmed through tests that he was indeed suffering from Rhabdomyolysis due to muscle injury. He attributed this injury to the hasty and negligent actions of the gym trainer, who compelled him to overexert himself.

The complainant had been promised that the gym had qualified professionals to ensure his well-being, but instead, the gym trainer pushed him into excessive exercise, resulting in his current condition. He alleged that the terms and conditions of the contract were biased and constituted unfair trade practices, indicating a deficiency in service. Despite multiple appeals for resolution, neither the gym nor the trainer addressed the issue. Dissatisfied with the situation, the complainant lodged a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”).

The Gym and its trainer did not appear before the District Commission during the proceedings. The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the Gym and its trainer to pay Rs. 4,050/- to the complainant along with Rs. 7,000/- as compensation for deficient service. Unhappy with the awarded compensation, the complainant appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”).

In response, the Gym argued that the complainant had violated the terms of the membership agreement by not following the trainer’s instructions, asserting that no one could compel an individual to continue exercising against their will. The Gym also contended that the complainant’s symptoms were due to dehydration and general weakness, rather than Rhabdomyolysis, highlighting its trained and certified staff who provided appropriate guidance and services. However, the Gym trainer did not appear before the State Commission.

Findings of the State Commission:

The State Commission observed that the membership agreement’s terms and conditions were biased and disadvantaged the complainant’s rights. These terms sought to exempt the Gym and related parties from liability for any injury, disability, death, loss, or damage, including incidents occurring on the premises. Such sweeping waivers were deemed unfair to consumers, potentially absolving the Gym from accountability even in cases of severe negligence or deliberate misconduct. The State Commission noted the unequal bargaining power of consumers who might feel pressured to accept these terms to access the Gym.

Reviewing the complainant’s medical records, which indicated a diagnosis of Rhabdomyolysis following strenuous exercise at the Gym, the State Commission disagreed with the District Commission’s previous dismissal of the claim and attributions of other potential causes. It determined that the complainant’s condition was indeed linked to excessive exercise or training at the Gym, citing inadequate supervision and expertise from the Gym trainer during initial workouts.

Consequently, the State Commission increased the compensation to Rs. 25,000/-. Additionally, it noted an oversight by the District Commission for not awarding litigation costs and directed the respondents to pay Rs. 7,000/- for legal expenses. The original order was amended to incorporate these instructions, with interest applicable if the amounts were not settled within 45 days.

The appeal was partially upheld, mandating the respondents to reimburse Rs. 4,050/- with interest, provide Rs. 25,000/- in compensation, and cover Rs. 7,000/- for litigation expenses.

Posted and reproduced in Public Interest by

Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani Legal Consultant

Expert in RERA & Consumer Matters, Co-operative Scty Matters,

Deem Conveyance, Family Matters, and Property Disputes.

Human and Civil Rights Campaigner  

President Citizens Justice Forum https://citizensjusticeforum.in  

YouTube Channel https://tinyurl.com/CitizensJusticeForum  

NEW CHANNEL FOR STOCK MARKET https://tinyurl.com/GreenWallet

WhatsApp +91 99877 43676