Delhi State Consumer Commission directed a hair transplant expert to pay a refund and compensation of Rs 60,000 to a patient for deficiency in service for not delivering the kind of results as promised.
Avik Mukherjee the compliant was not satisfied that his baldness could not be cured to his satisfaction.
State Consumer Commission president Justice J D Kapoor held doctor V S Malik, the hair transplant expert guilty of causing mental agony and extreme pain to the compliant.
Mukherjee had approached Malik's clinic for hair transplant and paid Rs 45,000. The procedure was to be completed in one mega sitting. But on getting dissatisfactory results, he dragged the doctor to a district forum in March 2007.
The Forum ordered the clinic to refund Rs 45,000 received by him as fees and also pay a compensation of Rs 15,000 and Rs 3,000 as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved, the doctor filed and appeal before the Commission which dismissed and upheld the district Forum's order.
"Even if a person is well qualified and an expert in the science, if the result of such a treatment is not as desired or worst than the remedy, the only inference to be drawn is either that of negligence in the procedure or lack of total perfection," Justice Kapoor said. "The consumer is concerned with the result and not how much effort was put in for yielding the desired and promised result," he observed.
Today cosmetic surgery has grown into a big industry catering to a large number of people. It is a sensitive task that requires not only skill but also perfection. "Any amount of inadequacy in the manner of performance causes immense mental agony, emotional suffering and physical discomfort to the consumer and therefore entitles the consumer to adequate compensation", said Justice Kapoor.
The doctor argued that the complainant left the hair transplant procedure midway, as he was allegedly tired and did not want to continue with the mega sitting. He further argued that the patient himself was careless as he himself requested for postpone the procedure to the next day.
But the Justice rejected the doctor's plea and said that when the second step - of transplanting hair after collecting them from the back of head - failed, the question of performing the third step did not arise. Failure of second step was either due to negligence or lack of skill.
The doctor has his clinic at South Extension and Rajouri Garden.