Consumer forum news: A Mumbai-based advocate’s decade-long legal battle over a failed hair regrowth procedure has ended with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) setting aside the Rs 6 lakh compensation awarded, finding no proof of negligence or unfair trade practice by the private firm or doctors over the ‘Platelet-Rich Plasma’ (PRP) therapy.
A bench of AVM J Rajendra (Retd), presiding member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, member, was hearing cross-revision petitions challenging a March 17, 2020, order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and allowed revision petitions filed by the opposite parties and dismissed those by the complainant.
AVM J Rajendra (Retd), NCDRC presiding member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, member, said medical professionals can’t be held liable just because treatment does not yield expected results.
“We are of the firm view that negligence and deficiency in administering the treatment on the part of OP-3 (Dr. Madhuri Agarwal/Dermatologist) and 4 (Dr Satish Kishoranand Arolkar (OP-4)/Plastic Surgeon) have not been proved on record. The findings of the learned District Forum as well as learned State Commission suffer from material irregularity and would lead to miscarriage of justice, if the impugned Order is not set aside,” the consumer commission said on April 23.
“There is no foundation to hold that OP-3 and OP-4 adopted any unfair medical trade practice or had been negligent in rendering the treatment to the complainant,” it added.
“A doctor cannot be held negligent only because something has gone wrong. He also cannot be held liable for mischance or misadventure or for an error of judgment in making a choice when two options are available. The mistake in diagnosis is not necessarily a negligent diagnosis,” the commission stated.
Background of case
The dispute arose from a complaint filed in 2015 after undergoing three sessions of PRP therapy in 2013 for hair regrowth.
The treatment was administered by dermatologist Dr Madhuri Agarwal and plastic surgeon Dr Satish Kishoranand Arolkar, allegedly upon assurances conveyed through an executive of a private firm, Lifecell International Private Limited.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant claimed that he was promised positive results but experienced no improvement despite undergoing painful procedures. He alleged misrepresentation, lack of proper licensing, and unfair trade practices, seeking compensation of nearly Rs 19.6 lakh.
Findings of district, state consumer forums
The district consumer commission in Mumbai in December 2018 held all opposite parties liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, awarding a refund of Rs 59,525 and compensation of Rs 10 lakh for mental and physical harassment.
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in March 2020, upheld the core findings of the district commission that all opposite parties – Lifecell, its executive, and the two doctors were guilty of unfair medical trade practice and deficiency in service, holding them jointly and severally liable.
It found that the complainant had been misled into believing PRP treatment would ensure hair regrowth, and that the procedure was undertaken without requisite licensing or regulatory backing, causing him physical, mental, and financial harm.
Story continues below this ad
However, while affirming liability, the state consumer commission reduced the compensation from Rs 10 lakh to Rs 6 lakh, reasoning that the original award was excessive compared to the actual expenditure of about Rs 59,525.
It held that compensation should be “just, reasonable and exemplary”, fixing Rs 6 lakh (along with refund and interest) as adequate to compensate the complainant and act as a deterrent against unlicensed medical practices.
NCDRC’s analysis
- The national consumer commission disagreed with both fora, emphasising settled principles of medical negligence.
- It held that PRP therapy is a recognised procedure distinct from stem cell therapy, and the two had been wrongly conflated.
- Lack of desired results does not imply negligence, as outcomes vary across individuals.
- The procedure was conducted by qualified specialists, and no expert evidence was led to show deviation from accepted medical standards.
- The complainant had consented to treatment and continued across multiple sessions, undermining claims of coercion or misrepresentation.
- The commission also found no illegality in Lifecell’s role, noting it merely supplied PRP kits and held appropriate registration with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation.
Key observations
- The bench underscored that medical professionals cannot be held liable merely because treatment does not yield expected results.
- A higher threshold of proof is required to establish negligence.
- Adverse findings by the lower fora were based on “misappreciation of facts and evidence” and would result in miscarriage of justice if allowed to stand, the national consumer body added.
- Consumer fora must avoid conflating different medical procedures and regulatory frameworks.
- It further noted that the complaint was filed nearly two years after treatment and was unsupported by expert evidence.
- A doctor cannot be held negligent only because something has gone wrong.
- He also cannot be held liable for mischance or misadventure or for an error of judgment in making a choice when two options are available.
- The mistake in diagnosis is not necessarily a negligent diagnosis.
Final order
Allowing the revision petitions filed by the doctors and Lifecell, the national consumer set aside the orders of both the district and state consumer commission, dismissed the complainant’s revision petitions and declined to award any costs.
The ruling reinforces the principle that unsuccessful medical outcomes alone do not constitute negligence, particularly in procedures with variable efficacy, like PRP therapy.