One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
A client from Pune came to us in early April 2025, completely at her wit's end. She'd signed up for an orthodontic aligner treatment at a well-known dental chain in Koregaon Park, financing roughly ₹68,000 through a Bajaj Finserv consumer loan. Within a day of signing the treatment agreement, she changed her mind and requested a full cancellation. No aligner work had begun — only a routine cleaning procedure had been done during the initial consultation visit.
The clinic refused to process the cancellation and instead demanded what they called "facilitation charges." Bajaj Finserv, for its part, kept sending payment reminders, overdue notices, and warnings that her credit score would be reported as defaulted. She tried resolving the matter directly with both parties for nearly three weeks. Nothing moved. A consumer complaint was then filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune, in late April 2025, and a case number was assigned.
And yet, the EMI pressure didn't stop. Daily emails, SMS alerts, calls — all while the matter was already before the Consumer Commission. She'd approached a general civil practitioner initially, who drafted a standard legal notice but had limited familiarity with fintech loan structures and interim relief procedures under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The notice went largely unacknowledged. When she came to Advocate Sudhir Rao, the strategy shifted to seeking specific interim reliefs from the Commission itself, along with a structured cease-and-desist communication to the lender citing the sub judice status of the dispute. The Commission acknowledged the interim application promptly, and the lender's recovery communications were paused within a few weeks of the intervention. The case demonstrated clearly how domain-specific procedural knowledge can change the pace and direction of proceedings.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
File an Interim Application Immediately: Don't wait for the main hearing to begin. File an interim application before the Consumer Commission seeking a stay on recovery action and on any adverse CIBIL reporting until the dispute is decided. Frankly, consumer courts do have the power to grant such reliefs under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and they take financial harassment during pendency seriously — more seriously than most people expect.
Send a Formal Sub Judice Notice to the Lender: Once the complaint is filed and a case number is assigned, send a written notice to the fintech lender specifically mentioning the case number, the Commission's address, and the fact that continued recovery pressure during the pendency of a sub judice matter may amount to an unfair trade practice. Attach a copy of the complaint acknowledgement. This creates a formal evidentiary record, and it also puts the lender on notice that they can't later claim ignorance.
Document Every Harassment Instance: Save every email. Screenshot every SMS. Log every call date and time from the lender. This documentation strengthens the case for interim relief and can support a prayer for compensation for mental agony under Section 39 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Now, before you act, understand this: consumer dispute matters involving fintech loan structures carry procedural and evidentiary nuances that general practitioners may not be fully familiar with, and engaging an advocate who regularly handles such matters typically leads to faster and more targeted outcomes.
Applicable Sections of Law
- Section 2(11) and Section 2(47), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Define "deficiency in service" and "unfair trade practice" — both squarely applicable when a dental clinic refuses a timely cancellation request and a lender continues coercive recovery while the matter is before the Commission.
- Section 36, Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Empowers the District Consumer Commission to grant interim reliefs, including directions to pause recovery action or CIBIL reporting, pending final disposal of the complaint.
- Section 39, Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Provides for remedies including refund, compensation for mental agony, and costs — applicable once the Commission finds deficiency in service.
- Section 19 read with Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Governs pecuniary jurisdiction — complaints up to ₹50 lakh lie before the District Commission, which covers matters of this nature.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
Get this right from day one. Consumer complaints are filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where the complainant resides or where the cause of action arose — whichever is more convenient to the complainant, per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. For disputes involving services valued up to ₹50 lakh, the District Commission has pecuniary jurisdiction. Where the dental clinic and the lender's operations both touch a particular city, that city's District Commission is the appropriate forum. A complaint filed before the wrong Commission can be returned, wasting months of proceedings — and that's a mistake you really can't afford when recovery pressure is mounting daily.
Limitation Period
Two years. That's your window. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose — in this type of case, typically the date of refusal of cancellation or the first overdue demand from the lender. Missing this two-year window is fatal to the complaint unless the Commission is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for delay, in which case condonation of delay may be sought under Section 69(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Act promptly, because delay weakens both the legal position and the factual narrative in ways that are very hard to explain away later.
Interim Reliefs Available
This is one area where many complainants leave real relief on the table. Section 36 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 expressly allows District Commissions to grant interim orders pending final disposal. Practically, this can include a direction restraining the lender from reporting the disputed loan as a default to credit bureaus (CIBIL, CRIF, Equifax), a direction to maintain status quo on recovery communications, and in appropriate cases, a direction to the clinic to not alienate any amount already collected. And here's the thing: these interim orders function similarly to temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, with the Commission applying the triple test of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. A well-drafted interim application filed early in the proceedings significantly improves the complainant's position — don't treat it as an afterthought.
If You Are the Victim
- File the consumer complaint without delay — attach the cancellation request (written or WhatsApp), the treatment agreement, and the loan sanction letter as annexures from day one.
- Simultaneously, file a specific interim application before the Commission praying for a direction that the lender not report the disputed amount to any credit bureau until final disposal of the complaint.
- Send a formal written notice to the lender citing the case number, the Commission's address, and asking them to direct recovery communications through the Commission rather than directly to you.
- Preserve all digital evidence — emails from the lender, screenshots of overdue notifications, and any WhatsApp communications with the clinic — in a consolidated folder with timestamps.
- Do not make partial EMI payments under pressure without consulting your advocate, as it can be construed as an admission of the loan liability in isolation from the service dispute.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Aadhaar card and PAN card (identity and address proof)
- Signed treatment agreement or consent form from the dental clinic
- Loan sanction letter and EMI schedule from the fintech lender
- Written cancellation request — email, letter, or WhatsApp message with timestamps
- Bank account statements showing any amount already debited
- All overdue/recovery emails and SMS messages from the lender
- Consumer complaint acknowledgement with case number from the District Commission
- Any receipts or invoices issued by the clinic for the initial appointment
What Evidence Is Required?
- Primary evidence: The signed treatment agreement and loan sanction letter — these establish the contractual relationship between the complainant, the clinic, and the lender.
- Cancellation communication: The written or digital cancellation request sent within 24 hours, with timestamp — this is the most critical piece of evidence establishing that no service was accepted.
- Evidence of no treatment rendered: Clinical records or absence thereof, showing only a cleaning/scaling was done and no aligner work commenced.
- Harassment evidence: Screenshots of overdue emails, SMS alerts, and call logs from the lender after the complaint was filed.
- CIBIL impact evidence: A credit report printout showing any adverse entry, if reported by the lender.
- Consumer case filing record: The complaint filed before the Commission, with the acknowledgement and case number.
How Courts Typically Approach Such Cases
District Consumer Commissions are generally receptive to cases involving fintech-facilitated medical or cosmetic services where the consumer cancelled early and no substantive service was rendered. Make no mistake, the Commission will examine whether the cancellation was timely, whether the clinic's "facilitation charge" clause was disclosed prominently before signing, and whether the lender acted independently of the service dispute. In cases like Prasad Kumar v. Oyo Rooms and Anr., 2022 (NCDRC), the National Commission reiterated that unfair trade practice and continued coercive recovery during pendency of proceedings can each attract independent compensation. Courts look closely at the timeline between service request, cancellation, and recovery action — which is precisely why your documentation from day one matters so much.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Week 1-2: Consumer complaint drafted, filed with the District Commission, case number assigned, acknowledgement received.
- Week 2-4: Interim application filed seeking stay on CIBIL reporting and recovery communication — Commission issues notice to opposite parties on the interim application.
- Month 1-3: Notices served on dental clinic and lender; written statements filed by opposite parties in response to complaint.
- Month 3-5: Issues framed, evidence affidavits filed by both sides, documentary evidence exhibited.
- Month 5-8: Arguments heard by the Commission.
- Month 8-14: Final order passed by the District Commission.
- Appeal stage: Either party may appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission within 45 days of the District Commission's order — further appeal lies to the NCDRC and thereafter to the Supreme Court.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Settlement is entirely possible, and in consumer disputes involving relatively modest amounts, it's often the smarter path. Under Section 37 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission may refer the dispute to mediation at any stage if both parties consent. The Lok Adalat mechanism under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is also available — awards passed by Lok Adalats are deemed decrees of civil courts and are final and binding on both parties, with no court fees payable. A settlement here would ideally include a full refund of any EMI deducted, a formal written confirmation from the lender that no adverse entry will be made to CIBIL, and a written closure of the treatment account. If the opposite parties signal any willingness to refund, take that conversation seriously — it saves time and eliminates appeal risk on both sides.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Delaying the complaint filing: Many consumers spend weeks or months trying to resolve matters directly, losing precious time and allowing the lender to build a recovery trail that complicates the narrative before the Commission.
- Not filing an interim application: Filing the complaint without simultaneously seeking interim relief on CIBIL reporting means the credit damage occurs during the pendency of the case — a harm that is very difficult to reverse even after winning.
- Making partial EMI payments under pressure: Paying even one installment after the dispute crystallises can be used by the lender to argue that the loan liability was accepted, weakening the consumer's position considerably.
- Posting details of the dispute on social media: Public posts about the clinic or lender before the Commission's final order can invite defamation counter-claims and prejudice the proceedings.
- Signing settlement letters without legal review: Some clinics or lenders send "full and final settlement" letters that waive rights the consumer doesn't intend to waive. Never sign these without your advocate reviewing the document.
- Engaging an advocate without relevant domain experience: Consumer law involving fintech-linked service disputes has its own procedural character. A practitioner who doesn