Hyperpigmentation treatment gone wrong

• The 24-year-old complainant had undergone treatment for hyperpigmentation at the clinic after paying Rs 52,689 in December 2024.
• According to her complaint, she was administered a Q-switch laser facial treatment and, immediately afterward, a rose mask soaked in hot water was applied to her face.
• She alleged that the procedure damaged her skin, causing irritation, acne, and facial breakouts, resulting in mental agony and financial loss.
• The clinic denied negligence, contending that the complainant’s skin was naturally dehydrated and oily, that aloe gel had been applied between the laser treatment and the rose mask, and that she had discontinued the prescribed treatment regimen on her own.
• The clinic argued that the skin issues developed after she stopped using the recommended home-care products.
• The clinic contended that the complaint was filed to defame its goodwill and to extract money.

‘No necessity to file false case’

After examining the evidence, including photographs, medical records, and conversation records exchanged between the parties, the commission found the woman’s version credible.

It observed that there was no reason for the complainant to initiate litigation merely to tarnish the clinic’s reputation, particularly when she had voluntarily chosen the establishment for treatment.

“According to the opposite parties, this complaint was filed to extract money and to defame the name of the opposite parties. Only the complainant selected the opposite parties for her treatment. If, the treatment was perfect and alright, there is no necessity for the complainant to file a false case against the opposite parties,” the commission noted.

The commission noted that the evidence supported the claim that a hot-water-soaked rose mask had been applied immediately after the laser procedure, causing damage to the complainant’s skin and leading to acne and pimples.

It held that the clinic had committed deficiency in service and that the negligence had caused the complainant severe mental strain.

“Complainant proved that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service. It would have given severe mental strain and mental agony to the complainant,” the commission observed. It also noted that the complainant incurred medical expenditure for further treatment.

The commission ordered the opposite parties to refund Rs 52,689 with interest. In addition, it awarded a consolidated compensation of Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony, financial loss and deficiency in service, along with Rs 10,000 as costs.

“These amounts, shall be paid by the Opposite Parties (clinic), within one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In case of default to pay the amount, thereafter the Opposite Parties, shall pay 9% interest per annum, for these amounts, to the complainant, till the date of realisation,” the commission added.

Payout awarded for overcharging

In another case, a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Andhra Pradesh’s Prakasam district directed a retailer to refund an excess amount of Rs 82 charged to a customer and pay compensation and litigation costs amounting to Rs 7,000 after finding that the retailer sold 100 grams of almonds above its maximum retail price (MRP).

A bench of president D Sreedevi and members Y Sundara Rao and Dr S A Sameera noted that the allegations against the retailer were proved by the unchallenged evidence of the complainant.

“The sale of goods more than MRP shows the unfair trade practice followed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and they are definitely liable to repay the excess amount with interest and compensation, to the complainant,” the commission noted in its order dated May 30.