forever living products india pvt ltd - Refund Denied Despite Clear Misrepresentation and Policy Violation

I purchased Forever Living Products (FLP) worth ₹**,*** under Invoice #****-***-****** dated ** June ****, after attending multiple Zoom training sessions conducted by FLP representatives. In these sessions, a very attractive and rosy picture was painted — that by joining as a selling partner (FBO) and purchasing a starter package, I would be able to earn substantial income. Relying on these assurances, I invested in the products.

However, soon after, I realized that the actual business opportunity was far from what was promised. The income projections and claims made were misleading and impractical. I therefore decided to exercise my right under FLP’s **-day Buy-Back and Return Policy and sought a refund.

The Issues:
Partial Refund Only:
I returned the products within the stipulated period.

Out of the total products, ** sealed items were accepted by the company, and a refund of ₹*,*** was issued.

The balance ** items worth ₹**,*** remain unpaid, with FLP denying refund on the sole ground that they were “opened.”

Products Opened Only on FBO’s Instructions:

I was specifically instructed by FLP’s registered FBO, Ms. Chhavi Yadav, via WhatsApp and in a voice note, to open the products and share pictures under the pretext that “the boxes may be empty.”

I complied in good faith, assuming this was part of FLP’s standard process.

Denying refund on this basis is grossly unfair and punishes the consumer for following the representative’s explicit instructions.

Evasion of Responsibility by FLP:
FLP has repeatedly tried to shift blame entirely on the FBO, calling her an “independent contractor.”

However, under law, a Direct Selling Entity is vicariously liable for acts of its direct sellers. The products were purchased under FLP’s brand, with their invoice, and refund claims are against FLP, not the individual FBO.

Grievance Redressal Failures:
In their official mail dated **th August ****, FLP even admitted that they “cannot provide any timeline” for resolving the complaint.

This is a blatant violation of grievance redressal obligations under the Direct Selling Rules, ****.

Harassment:
Instead of addressing my grievance, FLP’s team has made repeated calls, pressuring me to deal with the FBO directly, and even alleging that seeking my refund amounts to “extortion.”

This has caused undue harassment and mental agony.

Legal Grounds:
Consumer Protection Act, ****: Denial of refund in these circumstances is an unfair trade practice (Section *(**)).

Consumer Protection (Direct Selling) Rules, ****:

Rule *(*)(k): FLP is liable for grievances arising out of sales by its direct sellers.

Rule *(*) & *(*): Obligation to acknowledge within ** hours and resolve within ** days.

Rule *(**): Obligation to partner with National Consumer Helpline (NCH).

Rule *(i)(b)–(e): Direct sellers must not mislead, harass, or induce mis-selling.

Case Law: Amway India Enterprises v. Union of India (****) established that direct selling entities are liable for acts of their sellers; Emaar MGF v. Aftab Singh (****) clarified arbitration clauses cannot oust consumer forums.

Prior Escalation:
Complaint already filed with the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), docket no. ******* (**th Sept ****).

FLP’s response to NCH seeks to shift all liability away from the company, which is contrary to law.