Back
Aesthetic Ambitions Turn Costly: Consumer Court Penalizes Clinic for Laser
A 24-year-old woman’s quest for clearer skin through hyperpigmentation treatment has culminated in a significant legal victory at the . The Commission, presided over by Thiru. Y. Gladstone Blessed Tagore and Member Thiru. S. Nagendran, recently ruled that a prominent skin clinic’s procedural failures caused the significant and physical damage, deeming it a clear " ."
The Unfolding of a Cosmetic Crisis The dispute began in , when the , Y. Jershini, paid ₹52,689 to for a Q-switched laser face treatment. According to the complaint, the situation deteriorated on , when a "rose mask" soaked in hot water was applied immediately following the laser procedure.
The patient alleged that this specific step caused immediate irritation and, subsequently, severe acne and facial breakouts. Exacerbated by these breakouts, the was forced to seek treatment at another facility— —to address the damage.
Conflicting Narratives: or Patient Non-Compliance? The defense presented by challenged the narrative of , asserting that the patient’s skin was already dehydrated and that they had applied an intermediary aloe gel to soothe the skin. The clinic argued that the had willfully discontinued the prescribed home-care products, which they claimed were essential for maintaining the results of the treatment.
The Clinic held,
"To defame the good will of the
and to extract money, this complaint was filed."
However, the Commission remained unimpressed by these assertions, noting that if the treatment had been executed successfully, there would be no logical motivation for a 24-year-old to initiate protracted legal proceedings against the clinic.
The Commission’s Reasoning In its evaluation, the Commission highlighted the evidentiary weight of the documentation provided. The exchange of messages (Ex. A.11) and the medical bills for subsequent corrective treatment (Ex. A.12) solidified the Commission’s view. The judges noted that the appearance of pimples and acne following the procedures served as physical proof that the clinic’s protocol for the sensitive post-laser skin was fundamentally flawed.
Key Observations The Commission’s ruling was biting in its critique of the clinic's service standards:
-
"From the clear evidence of the
, it appears that immediately after Q-switch laser procedure, rose mask soaked in hot water was applied, on her face and this damaged her skin, resulting in acne and pimples."
-
"
proved that the
com
mitted deficiency in service. It would have given severe mental strain and
to the
."
-
"Only the
selected the
for her treatment. If the treatment was perfect and alright, there is no necessity for the
to file a false case against the
."
-
"Because of the
of the
, at the time of giving treatment,
suffered lot, with acne and pimples."
The Order Acknowledging the
"severe mental strain and
"
caused by the failed treatment, the Commission ordered the
to provide a full refund of ₹52,689, carrying an interest rate of 6.5% per annum from the date of filing. Furthermore, the clinic was ordered to pay a consolidated
of ₹2,00,000 for mental health distress and the financial burden of corrective treatments, along with an additional ₹10,000 in costs.
This ruling serves as a stark reminder to cosmetic and laser clinics that the in aesthetic procedures carries significant legal responsibilities, and that patient documentation and adherence to safety protocols are paramount in defending against claims of .
