Mumbai District Commission Holds VLCC Liable For Laser Treatment Burns, Orders Refund And Compensation

Background Facts

The complainant booked laser hair removal with the VLCC (Respondent) clinic on 25th February 2023 and paid Rs. 47,200/- in advance. The procedure had to stop midway as the complainant's skin started to burn. Her condition worsened and her request to speak to the doctor was denied.

Even after mailing the matter to the CEO of VLCC and submitting photos of her burns no refund or resolution was provided. Instead she was offered credit note for other services or transfer the credit to friends or family. The complainant refused this offer due to her traumatic experience.

Later she lodged her complaint with the National Consumer Helpline on 20th March, 2023. Aggrieved by the refusal to repay the complainant filed a complaint before the district commission, seeking refund of ₹47,200, compensation of ₹1,50,000 for mental harassment and medical negligence ₹20,000 for litigation cost.

Contentions of VLCC

VLCC Contended that the laser treatment was performed with the Complainant's consent. They denied any negligence or deficiency in their services.

VLCC further contended that the burn marks were just hyperpigmentation which is normal and disappears within 3 to 4 days. Additionally they argued that the side effects was due to the negligence of complainant.

Observation by the district commission

The commission noted that VLCC was not only deficient in their service but also engaged in unfair trade practices by refusing to refund the advance amount and insisting that the Complainant accept a credit note instead.

Commission observed that the act of the clinic caused mental and physical agony to the complainant and she was entitled to a refund.

Therefore, commission directed VLCC to refund the advance payment with 9% interest from 25th February 2023 until the payment is made and realized, pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation for physical and mental agony and pay Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.

Lastly, regarding the complainant's claim that the clinic was illegal and not registered under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2016, the commission directed the complainant to file a separate complaint in the appropriate court having jurisdiction.

Case – Garima Gairola Nanda Versus Vlcc Health Care Ltd.

Citation – Complaint Case No. CC/23/232

Date of order – 5 November