[Negligence] WB Consumer Forum Directs VLCC To Compensate Client Who Sustained Burn Injuries During Fat Reduction Process [Read Order]

The order assumes importance in contemporary time where on one side beauty clinics are a blooming industry, while on the other side they shake off their liabilities by way of devious consent applications.

"A patient who has been injured by an act of medical negligence has suffered in a way which is recognized by the law-and by the public at large-as deserving compensation. This loss may be continuing and what may seem like an unduly large award may be little more than that sum which is required to compensate him for such matters as loss of future earnings and future cost of medical or nursing care," the Commission remarked.

The Commission has asked VLCC to refund the amount paid by the Complainant for fat reduction process, i.e., Cool Technique Procedure, along with compensation worth Rs. 1,00,000/-. It noted that VLCC did not prove on record that any expert/ doctor were present when the process was being administered to the Complainant and hence, a case of deficiency in services was made out.

"OPs failed to discharge even the initial burden. Therefore, it is the obligation on the part of the OPs to either notice the Doctor and/or Expert. In such circumstances adverse inference should have been drawn against the OPs. There is also no documentary evidence on record to establish that Mr. Tamal Manna, technician is highly qualified and trained to attend on each and every customer a high degree of care, caution and professionalism.

For the kind of negligence, deficiency in service and the mis-representation made by the OP-3 award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is reasonable or commensurate with the loss, injury and mental and physical pain and agony suffered by the complainant," the Commission ordered.

Reliance was placed on India Medical Association v. VP Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651, whereby the Court had held that services rendered to a patient by a Medical Practioner by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment, both medicinal and surgical would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2 (1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

VLCC had denied the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service on the ground that result of cosmetic treatment may vary person to person and any post treatment adverse effect does not mean that they had done wrong treatment in a negligent manner.

Moreover, it was contended that the complainant was well apprised with the entire process, post treatment effect, possible complications and had signed a consent form acknowledging the same.

The Commission noted that the clinic had repeatedly assured the Complainant that the treatment would be conducted under strict supervision of medical experts and doctors to avoid any complications. However, it failed to prove the same on record.

Thus, applying the test of reasonable skill and care, the Commission held,

"… In our considered view, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP-3 during Cool Technique Procedure. Thus, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 2,00,069."

Case Details:

Case Title: Anna Louise Correia v. VLCC Health Care Ltd. & Ors.

Case No.: CC N. 396/2018

Quorum: Swapan Kumar Mahanty (President), Sahana Ahmed Basu and Ashoke Kumar Ganguly (Members)

Appearance: Advocate Mousomee Shome (for Complainant); Advocate Debosis Mitra (for Respondent)

Click Here To Download Judgment

Read Judgment