Hair transplant done without requisite licenses, specialists: Delhi Clinic slapped Rs 6 lakh compensation

New Delhi: Holding a Delhi-based clinic liable for failed hair transplant surgeries, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), New Delhi, has directed the clinic to pay Rs 6 lakh to a patient. The court noted that the clinic failed to produce any document showing authorisation or license to perform modern scientific hair implantation procedures and it also lacked government approval to engage the concerned doctors for such treatments.

"The procedure conducted amounted to an unfair medical trade practice, carried out without the requisite licenses or specialized expertise, and appeared motivated solely by financial gain," the court said.

The patient/complainant had spent Rs 5 lakh on the hair transplant surgeries. However, the Consumer Court noted that the doctors at the clinic transplanted the hair to cover the bald area and created another bald area by over-harvesting the donor area.

Accordingly, holding the clinic deficient in service, the consumer court directed it to refund Rs 5 lakh to the complainant, pay Rs 1 lakh compensation for mental harassment, and Rs 30,000 as litigation charges within 45 days from the receipt of the order.

"...complainant is entitled to payment of said amount in addition to some amount of compensation for physical and mental harassment which he suffered at the hands of the opposite parties.Medical procedures must be performed by qualified and licensed professionals. Clinics should be properly registered and must adhere strictly to established medical standards. Patients must be fully informed about the procedure, including its risks, limitations, and expected outcomes. The complainant went through depression, trauma, and anxiety," observed the Consumer Court.

The history of the case goes back to 2011, when the complainant approached the treating clinic after knowing about it through advertisements in various magazines.

After conducting a thorough check-up and calculating the number of hairs to be grafted, the doctors at the clinic assured that the surgery would give a natural look by transplanting 1621 hairs and told him that they would charge Rs 2,25,000 for the procedure. 

Accordingly, the complainant was admitted and he deposited Rs 1 lakh as an advance, and the doctor started the surgery. It was alleged that the clinic stopped the surgery in-between and directed the complainant's attendants to first deposit the entire amount to enable them to complete the surgery. Finally, after depositing the entire amount, the surgery was completed. 

Later, the patient alleged that despite following all the post-surgery instructions, no positive outcome could be seen. When the complainant reported it to the clinic, they regretted their negligence and promised to rectify their defect. Again, he visited the clinic on 03.12.2012 and was again operated upon for a hair transplant. For the second surgery, the patient paid Rs 2,76,000. However, even after the second session, the clinic failed to fulfil its promise.

Filing the consumer complaint, the complainant sought a refund of the amount spent by him, along with compensation, travel cost, loss of pay etc. On the other hand, the clinic submitted that the complainant had been informed about the pros and cons of the surgery, and he gave consent only after understanding the same. 

The clinic insisted that the complainant was given professional treatment, and the chances of success were duly explained to the complainant. They also claimed that the second surgery was conducted by a certified MD Dermatologist.

While considering the matter, the consumer court observed that while the clinic submitted that the patient did not complain during the treatment, it never explained why the complainant did not find any difference despite the treatment.

"They have nowhere explained as to whether the treatment was successful or not and what is the logic behind it. In the absence of firm assertion on the part of OP, the version of the complainant appears to be reasonable and worth reliance," observed the Commission.

"What was required before the treatment of the complainant apart from the qualifications of doctors treating the patient was that they must have been armed with declaration from the Government that they were practicing in specialized modern scientific medical treatment of surgical intervention of the scalp so as to grow hairs thereon in bald areas as per prevalent rules framed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act," it further held.

The consumer court also noted that the clinic failed to produce any document showing authorisation or license to perform modern scientific hair implantation procedures.

"They also lacked government approval to engage doctors such as Dr. Urvashi Chandra and Dr. Arihant Surana for such treatments. The procedure conducted amounted to an unfair medical trade practice, carried out without the requisite licenses or specialized expertise, and appeared motivated solely by financial gain. As a result, the complainant suffered monetary loss of approximately ₹ 5,01,000/- along with physical and mental distress," held the consumer court.

Holding that the complainant had sufficiently substantiated his claim for compensation by leading cogent evidence, the Consumer Court concluded that there was negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the clinic in not providing proper treatment to the complainant despite charging for the same.

"This is a case where opposite parties transplanted the hairs to cover Bald area and created another Bald area by over harvesting the donor area. Hence, complainant is entitled to payment of said amount in addition to some amount of compensation for physical and mental harassment which he suffered at the hands of the opposite parties," observed the consumer court.

Clarifying that medical procedures must be performed by qualified and licensed professionals, and clinics should be properly registered and strictly adhere to established medical standards, the consumer court ordered, "Accordingly we are satisfied that there was deficiency on the part of the OP in giving her treatment to the complainant. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of ₹ 5,01,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh One Thousand Only) to the complainant, pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) as litigation charges within 45 days from the receipt of this order failing which entire amount shall become payable with the interest @ 12% per annum till realisation."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/dcdrc-hair-transplant-procedure-293278.pdf

Also Read: Can Dentists Perform Hair transplants, Aesthetic Surgeries? Tug of War erupts between Medical and Dental Councils