Consumer Commission Orders Compensation in Laser Treatment Mishap
In a recent ruling, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kanniyakumari held a skin clinic accountable for negligence in a treatment that caused significant skin damage to a young woman. The incident involved a 24-year-old woman who experienced adverse effects following a hyperpigmentation procedure, resulting in the clinic being ordered to compensate her over ₹2 lakh.
Background of the Case
The Commission, presided over by President Y Gladstone Blessed Tagore and Member S Nagendran, found the clinic guilty of providing deficient service. The complainant had undergone a Q-switch laser treatment at the clinic in February 2025, paying ₹52,689 for the procedure. However, she reported developing acne and facial skin damage post-treatment, which necessitated further medical intervention.
Details of the Incident
According to the complainant, her adverse reaction stemmed from the application of a rose mask soaked in hot water immediately after the laser session, leading to irritation and persistent acne. The clinic, however, contested these claims, asserting that they adhered to proper procedures, including the use of an aloe gel intermediary before the mask application. They argued that the complainant’s skin issues arose after she stopped following the prescribed treatment regimen.
Commission’s Findings
Upon reviewing the evidence, which included photographs, medical bills, and communication records, the Commission deemed the woman’s account credible. The evidence supported her claims of skin damage post-procedure, and the Commission acknowledged her incurred additional expenses for corrective treatment elsewhere.
The Commission stated, “Complainant is a young girl of just 24 years old. Pimples and acne made the face of the complainant ugly… There is no reason for the complainant to file a false case against the opposite parties (skin clinic).”
More Read
Compensation and Legal Representation
As a result, the Commission ordered the clinic to refund the ₹52,689 paid for the treatment, with an interest rate of 6.5% from the complaint filing date until the disposal of the case. Additionally, the Commission awarded ₹2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and negligence, alongside ₹10,000 to cover litigation costs. The payment is to be made within one month, failing which an interest rate of 9% per annum will apply until the amount is fully realized.
The complainant was represented by Advocate A Joseph Ranjeev Das, while Advocate PR Dhilipkumar appeared for the skin clinic.
