By Smt. Beena. M, Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

2.  Facts of the case in brief:   The Complainant approached the Opposite Party for laser treatment to remove the hairs on her chin and upper lip.  At that time the Opposite Party assured that the hairs would be removed completely after 4^th sitting. Then the Complainant started treatment.  But there was no decrease in the hair growth on her face and hair again came back within 15 days.  The Opposite Party obtained Rs.29,000/- from the Complainant.  The Complainant further submits that for the 3 sittings the Opposite Party collected Rs.6,300/-.  At the time of 4^th sitting the Opposite Party collected Rs.9,300/-.  The Opposite Party refused to give receipt for the amount collected.  There was no result even after the 4^th sitting of treatment.  Hence this complaint.

3.  Upon notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed version. The version filed by Opposite Party is as follows:  The Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant visited Opposite Party clinic on 21/07/2022 and taken treatment for hair reduction.  It is denied that she has assured complete removal of hair in 4 sittings as alleged in the complaint. Hair reduction is a cosmetic procedure and result will depend purely on various other medical conditions of the patient. Complainant was evaluated and found that there were hormonal issues for her and she was referred to consult gynaecologist for better result. It was also noted that she is having thyroid disorders, past history of irregular menstruation and undergone the treatment for the same. Opposite Party evaluated the Complainant and found that she had undergone chemical peels at outside the centre. The risks and benefits were explained to the patient very dearly and Opposite Party had taken an informed consent from the Complainant before starting the procedure. The Opposite Party had diagnosed and treated the patient after explaining and discussing with her. Opposite Party did the treatment as per standard protocol and procedure. The machine used for her treatment is the standard and acceptable hair reduction machine available in the market. Opposite Party had also explained the chances of hair growth after the session. Opposite Party prescribed medicines and advised for a review after four weeks. The allegation that there was hair growth on every 15 days is false and baseless. There were significant improvement in her condition and she came for review consultation on 19/08/2022. Opposite Party had done the second session of hair reduction.  Being satisfied by the result she requested for face pigmentation reduction treatment also. On 19/08/2022, Complainant underwent procedure for hair reduction and laser face pigmentation reduction.  The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant had paid Rs.29,176/- of which Rs.19,876/- was paid through google pay and Rs.9,300/- by cash. Allegation that Opposite Party did not give bill for Complainant’s payment is false and baseless. Opposite Party had issued bill for every payment and kept records for the same. All payments are accounted and audited. All account books and bill books are maintained as per law, since bill books are needed for daily accounting. Bill books can be produced if needed. It is not true that her condition remained the same after treatment. Her condition has improved and the treatment was effective till she continued the follow ups. Photographs of the Complainant before and after the treatment will prove the same. Since Complainant is having hormonal issues, Complainant was advised to follow up on a regular basis and evaluate her condition as advised by the Opposite Party.  After 40 days, Complainant came for the 4^th session and found that only few hair follicles remained in targeted area. There was significant reduction in her hair growth. After evaluation, she was advised to review after 3 weeks. Complainant didn't come for review as advised by the Opposite Party. She came to the Opposite Party only after 3 and  a half months. For further evaluation and diagnosis, Opposite Party referred the Complainant to gynaecologist. On evaluation it was noted that she had increased facial hair since 15 years and number of hairs had been reduced by laser treatment. It is also noticed that she is having irregular cycles once in 4 to 6 months for 15 years and hypothyroidism for two years and she was under medication.  For full diagnosis and treatment she was advised to undergo Ultrasound and hormonal test. She had undergone ultrasound and refused to conduct hormonal tests. Hormonal tests are very crucial in treating hair reduction and continue further sessions which were refused by her.  Her refusal for hormone tests and her irregular follow ups resulted in slow output in the procedure. There has been no negligence, indifference, carelessness or deficiency in service in the matter as seen alleged. There is no deficiency in service or carelessness on the part of the Opposite Party.   Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to Opposite Party.

4.  The Complainant filed proof affidavit and the document produced were marked as Ext.A1 to A7 and the documents produced by the Opposite Party confronted to the Complainant and were marked as Ext.B1 and B2.  The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit and was examined as OPW1 and the copy of the documents produced with the version compared with the original and were marked as Ext.B3 series. The documents produced by Karuna Hospital Sulthan Bathery as per the order in IA.846/2023 filed by the Opposite Party was marked as Ext.X1 series.

5.   The points arised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for?

6.  We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and evidence produced on record by the parties.  It is clear that the Complainant was having heirs on her chin and so she approached the Opposite Party for the removal of hairs on chin.  The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party had told that Complainant was undergone 4 sittings for removal of hairs on chin.  In spite of the treatment given by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, the hairs on the chin of the Complainant were not removed.  The Complainant further submitted that the Opposite Party has charged Rs.29,000/- from the Complainant, but failed to remove the hair on chin. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Here, the Opposite Party is not denying the laser treatment provided to the Complainant and amount collected from her for all the sittings provided.  On going through the documents, the Complainant is failed to produce any document to show that the Opposite Party was promised that the complete hair removal from her face. There is only self serving assertion of the Complainant on this aspect. No acceptable material has been produced to believe the allegation of the Complainant.  It is also observed that the Complainant gave her consent by signing on the consent form and this fact is not denied by the Complainant.  In the consent form it is mentioned that she also understand that the results of procedure is variable and the Complainant had been explained about the complications of the procedure. It is obvious that informed consent was obtained from the Complainant before she was subjected to laser treatment.    Since the Complainant was expected as the same and undertook the treatment with open mind that the result of the procedure is variable, the Opposite Party could not be made liable for it. It is submitted by the Opposite Party in every sitting of the treatment, the photograph of the Complainant’s face has been taken.  The Opposite Party produced the photograph before the Commission. It clearly shows that there is no hair growth on her face and also the hair on her face when compared with photograph taken before the treatment started. The Complainant has also not made any efforts to file any affidavit of any other doctors who are expert in the particular field so as to consider the evidence as expert evidence. The Complainant has not taken any steps to examine an Expert. Thus the Complainant has failed to discharge her onus proving medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party as alleged by her. There is, therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.  In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the result complaint is dismissed. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 25^th day of September 2024.

Date of Filing:-07.03.2023.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Bushra.                                                          Housewife.

Witness for the Opposite Party:-

OPW1.          Dr. C. Sunilkumar.                                     Doctor.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of Ultra Sound Scan Report.                    Dt:21.02.2023.

A2.                  Copy of Google pay Printout.                             Dt:21.07.2022.

A3.                  Copy of Google pay Printout.                             Dt:19.08.2022.

A4.                  Copy of Google pay Printout.                             Dt:24.09.2022.

A5.                  Copy of Google pay Printout.                             Dt:24.09.2022.

A6.                  Copy of Google pay Printout.                             Dt:02.11.2022.

A7.                  Copy of OP Sheet.                                                  Dt:21.07.2022

X1(Series).    Documents produced from Karuna Hospital (2 Nos).

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-

B1.                  Consent form for Facial Aesthetic Laser/Hair PRP/Hair

Transplantation/laser Hair Removal.  Dt:21.07.2022.

B2(Series).    Copy of Photographs (9 Nos).   

B3(Series).    Copy of Bill Receipt (2 pages).

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-