STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI Consumer Complaint No.SC/27/CC/18/77 Dr. Parul A. Jaiswal, (Practicing as Cosmetologist)

at Panancea Skin and Hair Clinic, 7, Parasmani, New Maneklal Mehta Estate, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400 086. ….... Complainant Versus

1. Timpac Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Having registered office at-

C-168, 1st floor, Naraina Industrial area, Phase 1, New Delhi 110028.

2. Mr. Rajesh Khurana

3. Mrs. Neelam Khurana Timpac Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

C-168, 1st floor, Naraina Industrial area, Phase 1, New Delhi 110028. ...... Opposite Parties BEFORE:

Hon’ble Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member Hon’ble Ms. Poonam V. Maharshi, Member APPEARANCE:

For the Complainant : Advocate Sundeep Sing.

Advocate Supriya Y. Kadam For Opposite Parties : Advocate Baliram V. Kamble

JUDGMENT

(Date 27-04-2026)

Per: Hon’ble Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member

1. The complainant, Dr. Parul A Jaiswal, alleged that she is a practicing cosmetologist running Panancea Skin and Hair Clinic at Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai, for over seven years. She had built a steady patient base and was engaged in skin and hair treatment, including tattoo removal. She had been operating various USFDA approved machines at her clinic. As her tattoo removal practice expanded, she sought a more advanced USFDA approved machine exclusively for that purpose.

2. Complainant stated that one Mr. Manish Shukla, a representative of Opposite Party No. 1 – Timpac Health Care Pvt. Ltd. – approached the complainant and introduced her to a machine called QCLEAR LIGHTAGE. He represented to her, repeatedly and emphatically, that this machine was the best available for tattoo removal, that it possessed Quad Pulse Technology which would never cause burns, that it had unlimited shots, required no maintenance, and was guaranteed to remove tattoos of any colour and any size within three sittings. He further assured her that pigmentation and melasma would resolve within three to four sittings. A live demonstration was conducted on patients at her clinic in May 2016, believing on the representation the complainant placed an order for the said machine for a total consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only).

3. The complainant paid Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) in cash as token money on 21/05/2016. Upon delivery and installation of the machine in July 2016, she paid a further sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs) by Cheque No. 8319 dated 27/07/2016 drawn on Bank of India, Ghatkopar (W). The remaining amount was to be paid in monthly instalments of Rs. 83,334/- over 24 months. The complainant paid instalments regularly from August 2016 to May 2017 and paid a total sum of Rs. 18,33,340/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Only) to the Opposite Parties through NEFT transfers and cheques.

4. Complainant further alleged that the machine failed to function properly from the very third day after installation. Despite multiple complaints and visits by technicians of the Opposite Parties, the machine repeatedly malfunctioned. More critically, even when it operated, the machine produced no results in tattoo removal. Patients returned with scars and burns rather than removed tattoos. Even after three to seven sittings, the tattoos showed no lightening whatsoever. The complainant suffered serious monetary loss as she was compelled to refund amounts to multiple patients including Mr. Govind Chudgi (Rs. 22,500/-), Ms. Kalpana Lohote, Ms. Vrushali, and Ms. Deepali, in order to save her professional reputation.

5. The grievance of the complainant escalated critically when one Mr. Rajesh Dhar, a former employee and representative of the Opposite Parties who had personally visited the complainant's clinic for training and servicing on multiple occasions, sent her an email dated 21/09/2017 categorically stating that the QCLEAR machine is not for tattoo removal and is meant only for toning and onychomycosis. This email, duly annexed with the c