Unsuccessful Results And Adverse Impacts After Chest Enhancement Surgery, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Cosmetic Surgeon Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainant went for an Ultra Sonic Liposuction treatment for his chin, chest, and abdomen at the clinic operated by Dr Deepak Kalia (“Doctor”) in Chandigarh. Despite the plastic surgery, his chest measurement remained unchanged post-surgery. Moreover, no visual evidence, such as pictures or samples, was provided by the clinic for his satisfaction. Further, he observed that there was a lymph on his body post-surgery. While there was a noticeable difference in measurement on the right and left sides of the chest, the overall outcome fell short of the expectations of the Complainant. Further, despite multiple requests, the Doctor didn't give a complete medical file, including bed head tickets, follow-up details, and discharge summaries to the Complainant. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh.

In response, the Doctor admitted the factual scenario presented by the Complainant but countered that he only visited twice after discharge and did not attend follow-up sessions despite recovery. The Doctor denied any demand made by the Complainant for documents and submitted that he provided all the relevant paperwork to the Complainant. Further, it contended that there was a counselling session attended by the Complainant with the clinic where he gave his informed consent for the surgery. Lastly, all actions were conducted diligently, prudently, and with due care and caution.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that the Complainant did not experience any beneficial outcome from the surgery despite paying a substantial amount of money. It further noted that the Doctor failed to produce any evidence, such as measurements of the chest and abdomen size before and after the surgery, that could substantiate the success of the procedure. The absence of concrete evidence on the record raised questions about the effectiveness of the surgery. Therefore, the District Commission held that there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor as the surgery didn't show the desired results for which the Complainant spent a substantial amount of money.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the clinic to partially refund the cost of surgery incurred by the Complainant, totalling Rs. 46,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit until payment. Further, it also directed the Doctor to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 7,500/- for the litigation costs.

Case Title: X vs Dr Deepak Kalia and Anr. (Patient name redated)

Case No.: CC/27/2020

Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant in person

Advocate for the Respondent: Rajiv Sharma