Deficiency In Hair Treatment Service, An Health Care Service Still Covered Under Amended Consumer Protection Act., Delhi State Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant sought the Metamorphosis hair treatment from the opposing parties (OPs), claiming to be a 100% effective solution for hair problems. Following discussions with OP-1 Dr. Monica Gogia, the complainant opted for a treatment plan with a 95% guarantee, involving 4-5 PRP sessions, and paid the total amount of Rs. 51,750. The complainant urges that despite undergoing four sessions, there was no improvement, and the treatment lacked professionalism. When the complainant raised concerns, the OPs allegedly responded inappropriately, and requests for refunds were denied. The complainant accuses the OPs of fraud for not delivering the promised professional hair loss treatment, citing deficiency and negligence. The complainant presents the ineffective treatment and unprofessional behavior as supporting evidence.

Contentions of the opposition

The OP's counsel argued that the complainant received professional treatment, and the likelihood of success was adequately communicated. In their affidavit and written statements, the OP mentioned that they went against the advice of the Appellants for the transplant and that the complainant himself decided to opt for PRP treatment after weighing all the pros and cons. The complainant did not express dissatisfaction during the treatment. The OPs contended that after repealing the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Legislature intended to exclude 'healthcare' services from the meaning of 'services' under Section 2(42) of the newly enacted Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Observations by the Commission

The Commission relied upon the Contentions by the Complainant, which cited a Public Interest Litigation case titled Medicos Legal Action Group v. Union of India in context to the exclusion of 'healthcare' services from the ambit of 'services.' The judgment states that in analyzing the 1986 Act and the 2019 Act, it is evident that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the term 'service' in the Indian Medical Association case includes services provided by medical practitioners to patients for a fee. The absence of 'health care' from the 2019 Act doesn't change this interpretation, as Parliament likely deemed it unnecessary to specify. If there was an intention to redefine 'service,' it should have been explicitly stated. The mere repeal of the 1986 Act by the 2019 Act, without additional provisions, does not exclude health care services from the definition of 'service' according to the court's interpretation. Hence, the healthcare provided in this scenario comes under the ambit of service under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

In view of the foregoing, the Commission reiterated the reasons given by the district forum, which stated that the OPs have nowhere explained whether the treatment was successful or not and the logic behind it. In the absence of a firm assertion by OPs, the complainant's version appears reasonable and worth reliance. Accordingly, there was a deficiency on the part of the OPs in treating the Complainant.

The bench reaffirmed the decision of the district forum and directed the opposite party to refund Rs 51,750 to the complaint. The complainant is also granted relief of Rs 1,00,000 as compensation and 30,000 as litigation charges.

Counsel for the Complainant: Adv. Mansi Gupta

Case Title: Dr. Monica Gogia vs. Mr. Goldy Sahni

Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO.- 15/2022

Click Here To Read/Download The Order