Source : kelynnstory.com

Madam Gan Siew Hong was brought by her husband and son to visit a branch of London Weight Management on 23 July 2013 after watching its TV commercial which offered a weight-loss trial session for only $18.

However, the son, who paid for her mother’s treatment, was persuaded to pay a nearly $400,000 package with the slimming centre.

Madam Gan has diabetes, a heart condition, high blood pressure, kidney problems and water retention in her legs. She went to the facility to improve her condition. However, instead of getting better, her condition got worse as she suffered from diarrhoea, a skin rash and pus discharge.

Madam Gan filed the lawsuit in the High Court and seek for compensation of close to $450,000 from the slimming centre, which consists of the $400,000 full refund of the amount her son had paid, and another around $41,000 for medical fees incurred in treating the alleged adverse effects of the services.

Madam Gan claimed in court documents, which obtained by The Straits Times, that the centre consistently pressured her family to sign up for the package.
Madam Gan along with her husband, Mr Tan Ee Leong, and her son, Mr Tan Kok Wah went to Ngee Ann City branch and signed up for trial session.
Before starting the programme, Madam Gan said that her husband and son had asked whether she needed  a medical assessment before starting the programme. However, a therapist assured that the programme is suitable for her.
She reportedly said that her son and husband had asked for a medical assessment before starting the programme but were assured by the therapist that it was suitable for her.
When she was at her trial session, London persuaded her son to sign up for an eight-month package which costs $10,914.
Six days later, when she was at the third session, her son and husband extended the package to two years and had to pay for an additional $66,768.

A therapist accompanied the family home to collect a cheque for the balance.

Her son paid a portion using two credit cards, and a therapist accompanied the family home to collect a cheque for the balance.

Just two days later, London again persuaded Madam Gan saying that she needed more than two years to see progress. Her son, again wrote two cheques totalling $321,000 for a six-year package. Her son even added another $4,662.40 for “detox drinks”, and $3,595.29 for ginger masks to reduce the swelling in her legs.

After consuming the “detox drinks”, Madam Gan suffered diarrhoea. She also had rashes on her abdomen which was a sign of an allergic reaction to products applied on her skin.

However, she returned to the centre for more treatments. And only in June 2014, she quit the programme for she did not see any progress.

London stated that it would return unused portion of the package amounting to $43,408.15 out of goodwill.

It also defended itself by saying that Madam Gan’s family did not say that she had another health issue other than diabetes. Therefore, it is not liable for injuries resulting from non-disclosure of medical history.

It also said that it had advised her to seek medical advice on the suitability of its treatment and products and told her that successful weight loss depended on a balanced diet and regular exercise.

Such disputes on costly packages are not uncommon in Singapore as there is no regulatory framework on wellness companies and also the lack of consumer protection against hard sell tactics and unfair contracts forced upon unsuspecting customers.

In 2013, a 58-year-old woman, Madam Lam Ngiet Keow, sued Yun Nam Hair Care to seek the refund of the unused portion of the packages amounting to $353,897.

Madam Lam said that she had bought 40 packages of contracts to solve her grey hair problem from the company since 2003 amounting $380,000, the majority of the contracts were bought between June 2011 and October 2012. She also said that she had only used $16,103.

However, Yun Nam Hair Care denied all her allegations and did not feel that she had any grounds to seek compensation for any injuries or damages.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Labour Market report: Income dropped – 0.7%?

~by: Leong Sze Hian~ I refer to the Labour Market 2011 report…

BREAKING NEWS: Court dismisses Yong Vui Kong’s appeal

BREAKING NEWS: In an unanimous verdict, Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, Justice…

吴家和发起 周日办探讨CECA、人口课题集会

失业者互助网站 Transitioning.org创办人吴家和(Gilbert Goh),于来临的周日(11月3日)下午4时至7时,在芳林公园发起集会,欢迎关注移民课题、新印全面经济合作协定(CECA)的民众,踊跃出席。 根据吴家和在昨日发布的贴文,海报上写着“让新加坡再次伟大”,以及“对CECA、拉美斯(Ramesh)和690万人口说不”。 海报上的拉美斯应是指近期因为停车费和公寓保安起政治的印裔高管拉美斯。相信是不满到访友人被征收10元停车费,他回呛保安人员,“我花了150万元买下这个单位”。然而他与保安争执的视频瞬间在社交媒体传开,其态度亦引来许多民众非议。 拉美斯已在今日向有关保安人员道歉。 至于总理李显龙曾在2015年的一次访谈,所谓690万人口实则是制定基础设施的指标,即国内建造铁路、房屋等,有能力应付690万人口为依据。 吴家和在脸书呼吁道,不管是失业者、就业中或不满意现有体制,都欢迎出席,而如果是保安人员,无任欢迎,希望能听听他们的想法。 基于当天预计可能下雨,天气会转凉,现场也将准备热美禄让老人家暖暖身子。 在另一则贴文,吴家和表示目前有500位群众表示将出席或有兴趣出席。他补充也邀请了新加坡前进党秘书长、前总统候选人陈清木医生出席。 陈清木曾在今年8月3日的前进党推介礼致词,呼吁重新检讨新印全面经济合作协定。 “我们需要政府公布CECA的表单,证明究竟多少国人从该协议受益?有多少印度专才前来工作?” 陈清木也认为,政府不能只关注GDP成长,也要有适合经商环境和支持SME和本地企业。…

Self-care kits distributed by Hush TeaBar, SDI Academy and The Art of Living Foundation brings joy to migrant workers

Migrant workers in Singapore were found to be struggling mentally due to…