Back
NCDRC Delivers Verdict: No Hair, No Foul – PRP Treatment Cleared of Negligence Claims
In a significant ruling for cosmetic treatments, the at New Delhi has set aside orders from lower consumer forums that held doctors and a medical kit supplier liable for "" and "." The bench, comprising AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member , and Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member , ruled on , in interconnected revision petitions that failure to achieve hair regrowth after Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy does not equate to negligence. This comes after advocate 's complaint against Lifecell International Pvt Ltd, its executive Chetan Purushottam, and doctors Madhuri Agarwal and Satish Kishoranand Arolkar.
From Umbilical Cord to Bald Spots: The Unlikely Journey to Court
The saga began in when Mumbai advocate approached Lifecell International Pvt Ltd for umbilical cord preservation during his wife's pregnancy. Conversations veered to PRP therapy for his hair loss, promoted via brochures and the company's website as a way to stimulate dormant follicles using the patient's own blood plasma. Gaglani underwent three sessions: the first with dermatologist Dr. Madhuri Agarwal (14ml blood drawn, ointment applied), and the next two with plastic surgeon Dr. Satish Kishoranand Arolkar at a hospital. He paid ₹59,525 but saw no regrowth, alleging pain, bleeding, misleading assurances of "100% positive results," and lack of licenses for PRP as a "drug" under the .
The in awarded refund plus ₹10 lakh compensation for mental agony. The in reduced it to ₹6 lakh but upheld joint liability. As reported in legal circles, Gaglani claimed Lifecell lacked approvals for stem cell procedures—a mix-up the NCDRC later clarified.
"Guaranteed Growth" vs. "No Promises Made": Clash in the Clinic
Gaglani's Side : He accused Lifecell's marketing executive Chetan Purushottam of false promises, including DCGI/FDA approvals and doctors' vast experience (30,000+ patients). RTI replies supposedly confirmed no PRP licenses, framing it as unlicensed "stem cell surgery." Pain without follow-up meds and zero results caused physical/mental harm; he even filed a criminal complaint under .
Defendants' Defense : Lifecell stressed it only supplies PRP kits (registered with ), referring patients to qualified doctors—no treatment role or guarantees, as results vary by individual response. Doctors Agarwal (ex-Sion Hospital dermatologist) and Arolkar (plastic surgeon) affirmed PRP's global acceptance for male pattern baldness, with consent forms signed. No pre-tests needed beyond history; ointment use was protocol-specific. They invoked : no negligence without expert proof of deviated standards. Complaint filed two years post-treatment smelled of afterthought.
Untangling PRP from Stem Cells: Court's Sharp Legal Scalpel
The NCDRC dissected the confusion: PRP uses centrifuged autologous plasma (not stem cells) for growth factors—distinct from regenerative stem therapy needing stricter regs. No special Drugs Act license required; blood draw (14-30ml) isn't like bank storage. Doctors' MD qualifications suffice; protocols followed.
Drawing from
Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab
(2005) and
Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital
(2010), the bench reiterated: negligence needs breach of reasonable skill, not just poor outcomes.
"A simple lack of care, an error of judgment, or an accident is not proof of negligence."
Echoing
Bolam v. Friern Hospital
(1957), no expert evidence showed deviation. Gaglani, an educated lawyer, signed consents after brochures/website review—hardly misled.
Precedents like Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009) warned against hasty negligence tags harming doctors' reputations. RTI replies were generic, ignoring PRP's non-drug status.
Punchy Quotes from the Bench: What the Judges Said
"Merely because the positive results of hair re-growth could not be achieved, an could not be drawn against OP-3 and OP-4 since there is no negligence attributed in performance of the procedure."
"Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional."
"All patients do not uniformly benefit from the hair growth factor treatments like PRP and some patients may experience no benefit. However, the same does not reflect on the competency of the medical practitioner."
Clean Slate for Providers: Implications Beyond the Scalp
All revision petitions by doctors and Lifecell (Nos. 1038/, 1183/, 182/2021) allowed; Gaglani's (681-683/2022) dismissed. Previous orders quashed—no refunds or compensation.
This shields cosmetic providers from "no results, no service" claims, stressing and variable efficacy. Future cases must prove actual breaches, not buyer’s remorse— a boon for PRP practitioners amid rising alopecia treatments, but a reminder: read the fine print before injecting hope.
