Recently, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Central Mumbai adjudicated a complaint concerning alleged deficiencies and unfair trade practices by a clinic providing laser hair removal services. The Court directed the clinic to refund the advance payment and awarded compensation for physical and mental suffering, noting that the clinic had failed to follow adequate medical protocols and imposed an unfair non-refundable policy on its customers.
The complaint booked a package of seven laser hair removal sessions with the clinic on February 25, 2023, paying an advance of Rs. 47,200. During the initial session, the complainant experienced burning sensations of her skin. The technician, without any attending doctor on site, applied moisturising cream and assured her of recovery. Despite reaching out to the clinic on February 26 for medical support, her condition worsened, prompting her to consult a private dermatologist. The complainant requested a refund via email on February 27, which was denied, with the clinic offering only a credit note for other services instead. Dissatisfied, the complainant filed a grievance on the National Consumer Helpline on March 20, 2023, and subsequently lodged this complaint seeking a full refund and compensation.
The complainant argued that the clinic’s refusal to provide a refund constituted an unfair trade practice. She contended that the laser procedure was conducted without adequate medical supervision, resulting in severe skin burns, and that the clinic’s refusal to issue a refund worsened her distress. The complainant further alleged that the clinic was operating without registration under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, and provided evidence supporting her claim. Whereas, the clinic denied any negligence, arguing that side effects such as hyperpigmentation are common and typically subside within a few days. They stated that the complainant had consented to the treatment and that the refund policy was clearly outlined in the invoice. The clinic insisted that they had offered the complainant a credit note as a goodwill gesture, which was rejected.
The Commission confirmed its jurisdiction over the matter, noting that the complainant resided within its territorial boundaries. The Commission found that the clinic failed to perform the procedure under a qualified doctor’s supervision, a bench of health regulations. Additionally, the clinic did not caution the complainant about potential side effects, which constituted negligence. The Commission also noted that although the invoice highlighted a non-refundable policy, it did not mention any risk of adverse effects from the laser treatment.
The Commission ruled that the clinic’s insistence on issuing a credit note rather than a refund amounted to an unfair trade practice. The clinic’s non-refundable policy was deemed unilateral and unfavourable to consumers who may not wish to return for services after an unsatisfactory experience.
The Court partially allowed the complaint, directing the clinic to refund the advance amount of Rs. 47,200 with 9% interest from February 25, 2023, until full payment. Additionally, the clinic was ordered to compensate the complainant with Rs. 30,000 for physical and mental suffering and to pay Rs. 10,000 toward litigation costs, compliance was mandated within 45 days.
Picture Source :
