Man repeatedly sent unsuitable matrimony profiles; commission orders Rs 37,000 relief

NEW DELHI: A Kerala based consumer commission has held a matrimonial services agency guilty of unfair trade for allegedly inducing a customer to buy a higher priced package by promising him personalised matchmaking assistance but eventually failing to provide the same.The Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the matrimony platform and its managing director to jointly and severally refund Rs 7,000, pay Rs 20,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. It also ordered them to stop misleading the consumers with assurances of personalised assistance, in its October 9, 2026, order.

Personalised matchmaking dispute

According to the commission order, the complainant, Akhil Vinod, approached the Intimate Matrimony after seeing an online advertisement offering personalised matrimonial services.

He installed its application on July 29, 2025, following which the representatives from the platform contacted him.Employed in Dubai, the complainant informed the matrimonial agency that voice calls could be made only through BOTIM, while profiles and other communications could be shared through WhatsApp. The agency accepted the arrangement and told him that its Kollam branch would provide the services.The complainant alleged that the agency promised active matchmaking and profiles suited to his preferences.

Although he initially intended to purchase a basic plan costing Rs 3,000, representatives persuaded him to choose a higher priced package by promising enhanced services.He paid Rs 7,000 and alleged that he was also made to digitally sign an agreement requiring an additional Rs 15,000 if a marriage materialised through the agency.According to the complaint, the profiles shared were unsuitable. Despite requesting alternatives, the agency repeatedly sent the same profiles and eventually stopped providing meaningful assistance.

The complainant alleged that repeated requests for services or a refund went unanswered, while representatives told him that suitable profiles were unavailable.The agency and its managing director appeared before the commission on April 29, 2026, but subsequently remained absent and did not file their response. The commission proceeded without their version.

Commission's finding

The bench comprising president S K Sreela and member Stanly Harold held the agency guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, finding that the complainant had paid for personalised assistance that was not meaningfully provided.The commission clarified that a matrimonial agency cannot guarantee a marriage, as the outcome depends on several factors, including the preferences and consent of the people concerned. However, the dispute concerned the failure to provide the services promised in exchange for payment.It observed that repeatedly sharing unsuitable profiles despite requests for alternatives, followed by a failure to provide meaningful assistance, did not meet the agency's obligations.The commission noted that the opposite parties had produced no material explaining the services rendered or the efforts made to identify suitable profiles.“The opposite parties have produced no material explaining the services actually rendered,” the bench said.The bench held that misleading assurances followed by failure to provide the promised assistance constituted unfair trade practice.“The misleading inducement to purchase the higher plan, followed by the failure to provide the promised assistance, constitutes unfair trade practice,” it added.The commission further stressed that matrimonial agencies must clearly disclose the scope and limitations of their packages.“The mere execution of a consent form does not establish satisfactory performance of the services undertaken,” the commission further added.

Final order

The commission allowed the complaint and directed Intimate Matrimony and its managing director to:

The monetary directions must be complied with within 45 days of receiving the order. In case of default, the compensation of Rs 20,000 will carry interest at 9 percent per annum from the expiry of that period until realisation.The total amount payable is Rs 37,000, excluding any interest arising from non-compliance.