2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 406

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
DR. SATISH K. AROLKAR – Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL M. GAGLANI – Respondent
NC/RP/1038/2020

PRP therapy for hair regrowth is an established procedure not requiring specific licenses, and qualified doctors cannot be held liable for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice merely because the treatment did not yield the expected results.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 14, 23, and 24 - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade practice - Medical negligence - The onus to prove medical negligence is largely on the complainant, which can be discharged by leading cogent and probable evidence; a mere averment in a complaint denied by the other side cannot be said to be proof. (Para 34)

(B) Medical Negligence - Principles of liability - Bolam test as approved by the Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab holds good in India - A doctor is not negligent if he acts in accordance with acceptable norms of practice; a simple lack of care, an error of judgment, or an accident is not proof of negligence - A higher threshold of proof is required to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence to ensure doctors can freely discharge their medical duty. (Paras 23, 24, 25, and 35)

(C) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - PRP (Platelet Rich Plasma) therapy for hair regrowth is distinct from Stem Cell Therapy - PRP therapy does not require specific government approvals or licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act; qualified Dermatologists and Plastic Surgeons are competent to administer the treatment. (Paras 29, 30, and 31)

Facts of the case:
The complainant, an advocate, underwent PRP therapy for hair regrowth in three sessions conducted by two doctors (a Dermatologist and a Plastic Surgeon), upon reference by a marketing executive of a company that supplied PRP kits. The treatment did not yield the expected hair regrowth. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties misled him, assured 100% positive results, and lacked the requisite licenses. The District Forum held all four opposite parties jointly liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, awarding Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation. The State Commission affirmed the finding of unfair trade practice and deficiency but reduced the compensation to Rs. 6,00,000. Cross-revision petitions were filed by all parties before the National Commission.

Findings of Court:
The National Commission found that PRP therapy is a globally accepted, established procedure for hair regrowth, distinct from stem cell therapy, and does not require special licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The two doctors were qualified and competent to perform the procedure. The complainant, being an educated professional, had given informed consent after reviewing the brochure and website. No evidence of medical negligence, misrepresentation, or deficiency in service was proved against either doctor. The supplying company was merely providing PRP kits and had no involvement in the treatment. The orders of the lower Fora were set aside.

Issues: The main issues were whether the opposite parties were guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; whether PRP therapy required specific government licenses; and whether the doctors were negligent in their treatment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that PRP therapy is an established procedure distinct from stem cell therapy and not requiring special licenses. Qualified doctors performing such treatment without any proven negligence or misrepresentation cannot be held liable for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The onus to prove medical negligence is on the complainant, which was not discharged by simply alleging failure of results.

Result: Revision Petitions filed by the opposite parties (RP No. 1038/2020, 1183/2020, and 182/2021) were allowed. Revision Petitions filed by the complainant (RP No. 681/2022, 682/2022, and 683/2022) were dismissed. The orders of the District Forum and State Commission were set aside. No order as to costs.