BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 351 of 2014

Date of Institution: 27-06-2014

Date of Decision: 16-09-2015  

Ms.Dimpal daughter of Sh.Kirti Lal Sharma, resident of House No. 186, Ward No.2, Nangal Kotli, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

Complainant

Versus

1. Dr.Girgla’s Skin and S.T.D.Clinic, through its proprietor Dr.Premjot Singh Girgla, 31-GF, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Opposite A Block Market, Amritsar.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Amritsar, through its Branch Manager.   

Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.  U.R.Sharma, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Navpreet Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sandeep Khanna, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Ms.Dimpal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant was having hairs on her chin and were also having pimples on her face and due to this, the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on 10.6.2013 and Opposite Party No.1 assured that the said hairs on her chin and pimples on her face will be permanently removed and for this, the complainant was to undergo sittings. The complainant has also underwent for various tests as per the  advice  of the Opposite Party No.1. As per the instructions of the Opposite Party No.1, the complainant has undergone 4 sittings for removal of hairs on her chin. But inspite of the treatment given by the Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant, the hairs on the chin and pimples on the face of the complainant were not removed. Rather the treatment of the Opposite Party No.1 has seriously affected the face of the complainant, as the whole face of the complainant has become disfigured, as black spots have come on the face of the complainant and it has materially affected the life of the complainant.  Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  to make the payment of Rs.1 lac as compensation and also return the amount of Rs.25,000/- received by Opposite Party No.1 for treatment of the complainant.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 is well qualified doctor having degree of bachelor of medicine and bachelor of surgery as well as doctor of medicine (Dermatology Venereology & Leprosy) and valid renewed certificate holder of registration with Punjab Medical Council. The complainant had presented with pimples (ACNE) and hairs growth on chin. The management of these two diseases in this case was done by Opposite Party No.1. It was executed stepwise in the most legal, ethical, scientific and competent manner. The standard treatment protocols based on published guidelines by experts in the speciality were followed at every step. Hair Reduction Treatment was done with IPL (Intense Pulsed Light). It was also cleared to the complainant that it is hair reduction and not permanent hair removal procedure.  It was also told to the complainant that multiple sittings are required (minimum 5-6), the number for satisfactory response vary from person to person. Improvement would be visible as decrease in; (i)thickness of hair-thick, coarse hair replaced by fine, thinner ones; (ii)density of hair-number of hair in the treated area  decrease; (iii)rate of hair growth decreases-need for frequently removing hair by other methods (shaving, cutting, plucking, threatening, waxing) might become less and adequate precautions- to avoid sunlight and direct heat, apply sunscreen, avoid scrubbing or facials and bleach, etc. were explained and informed written consent was taken. It was clear that the patient had understood well the details. The complainant still did not take the required regular treatments. She was irregular and took only 3 sittings.  Inspite of this, her hair density and thickness of hair had reduced and she also said that she did not need self removal of hair in between the sittings. No side effect or harm by treatment was reported by her at the numerous subsequent visits to the clinic. ACNE (Pimples) treatment as done in accordance with genuine scientific standard protocols, Oral medicines-Azithromycin, Vitamin A- Local applications- clindamycin, niacinamide, adapalene tretinoin-Adjuvants-standard face wash for oily skin, non-comedogenic sunscreen. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that for post ACNE pigmentation (dark spots left by pimples) and tanning-Azelaic Acid, Kojic Acid alongwith oral multi vitamin/ anti oxididants and proanthocyanidines were used. Moreover, for dermatitis/ rash which she reported later on-oral loratidine and local fluticasone cream were given for a short period. No assurance was given for permanent removal of hairs from the chin and pimples from the face of  complainant in four sittings, as alleged. It is denied that the complainant has undergone four sittings for removal of hairs on her chin. It is also denied that the treatment of  Opposite Party No.1 has seriously affected the face of the  complainant. In fact, the doctor is unaware of any such damage as there was no evidence of this  when the patient/ complainant was examined by him at the last consultation visit on 4.4.2014. Even the following points are worth noting:- (i) After healing of ACNE (pimples) dark spots (technically called post inflammatory pigmentation) are very common sequelae. They occur very frequently in dark (Indian) complexioned persons. A number of other factor like fidgeting, scratching, picking, popping up the pimples cause more damage and marks. Exposure to sun or bright light worsens these. Rubbing or scrubbing can also darken these. It is questionable as to how much care, precautions and adherence to the instructions was done by patient. So, as is obvious no question of blame of anything is there on the treating doctor who was working as per the scientific and ethical principles to relieve the patient, (ii) It is also imperative to note that when the patient first reported for treatment, her skin had suffered an almost irreparable damage by herself due to use of topical steroids on her face for a long time and a potent triple combination cream (mometasone, tretinoin and hydroquinone) for more than three months. This is noted  on the first prescription card of the patient/ complainant. The use of these medicines can cause severe damage- thinning of skin, intolerance to local applications, sensitive skin, and increase in hair growth and many other permanent serious defects. Recovery or restorations to normal skin is extremely difficult and unlikely. It is a sad fact that in our country where patients can buy medicines and self medicate, they can dare to blame a qualified expert giving genuine and scientific treatment and  (iii) in addition to it, after paying  a total amount of Rs.8,200/- for ten consultation visits and three sittings of hair reduction treatment and the complainant has quoted a false figure of Rs.25,000/- for expenses paid to the doctor for treatment. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.2 is that the Opposite Party No.1 has violated the basic terms and conditions of the policy in question. As per the general condition No. 10.1 the insured shall give  written notice to the company as soon as reasonably practicable of any claims made against the insured. Opposite Party No.1 neither intimated the Opposite Party No.2 regarding any claim, filed by the complainant, nor it intimated Opposite Party No.2 immediately regarding when the present complaint was filed by the complainant before this Forum. Moreover,  an informed written consent was taken from the complainant prior to the treatment. Moreover, the complainant did not take the required regular sittings to complete the treatment effectively. The complainant was guilty of using improper medicines before and after the treatment. So, the complainant had failed to take due care, precautions and adherence to the medical advice. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Premjot Singh Girgla Ex.OP1/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/11  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Surinder Singh, Divisional Manager Ex.OP2/1 alongwith copy of policy Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainant was having hairs on her chin as well as pimples on her face, so she approached Opposite Party No.1  on 10.6.2013  for the removal of hairs on chin and pimples on her face.  Complainant  submitted that Opposite Party No.1 told that the complainant was to undergo 4 sittings and complainant had also to undergo for various tests as per the  advice  of the Opposite Party No.1. Complainant further submitted that she had undergone 4 sittings  for removal of hairs on chin and pimples on her face. But inspite of the treatment given by the Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant, the hairs on the chin and pimples on the face of the complainant were not removed. Rather the treatment of the Opposite Party No.1 has seriously affected the face of the complainant, and the  face of the complainant has become disfigured, as black spots have appeared on the face of the complainant. The complainant further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 has charged more than Rs.25,000/- from the complainant, but failed  to remove the hair on chin and pimples on the face of the complainant, rather has badly affected the complainant and all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.
9. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party  No 1 is that the  complainant had presented herself with pimples (ACNE) on her face and hair on both side of her chin, before Opposite Party No.1. The management of these diseases was done by Opposite Party No.1. As per the standard treatment protocols based on published guidelines by experts in the specialty, detail of which are Ex.OP1/6 to Ex.Op1/9, hair Reduction Treatment was done with IPL (Intense Pulsed Light) and the complainant was clearly explained  that  hair reduction treatment does not amount to permanent hair removal procedure for which multiple sittings are required (minimum 5-6). Thickness of hair and density of hair where decreased and the rate of hair growth also decreased and she was told to have precautions i.e.  to avoid sunlight and direct heat, apply sunscreen, avoid scrubbing or facials and bleach, etc. Informed written consent was taken. The complainant was irregular and she took only 3 sittings and even during this period, her hair density and thickness of hair had reduced and the complainant herself told that she did not need self removal of hair in between the sittings. As regard ACNE (Pimples) treatment as done Oral medicines-Azithromycin, Vitamin A, Local applications- clindamycin, niacinamide, adapalene tretinoin—Adjuvants-standard face wash for oily skin, non-comedogenic sunscreen for post ACNE pigmentation and tanning-Azelaic Acid, Kojic Acid alongwith oral multi vitamin/ anti oxididants and proanthocyanidines were used. Moreover, for dermatitis/ rash which she reported later on-oral loratidine and local fluticasone cream were given for a short period. Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that no assurance was given for permanent removal of hairs from the chin and pimples from the face of  complainant in four sittings. Even the  complainant has not undergone four sittings for removal of hairs on her chin. Opposite Party No.1 categorically denied that the treatment of  Opposite Party No.1  given to the complainant has  seriously affected her face and  her face has become disfigured. Opposite Party No.1 further denied that  wrong treatment was given to the complainant. The complainant never requested/ approached Opposite Party No.1 regarding any damage to her face. There was no evidence of any damage  to the face of the complainant when she was examined by Opposite Party No.1 at the last consultation visit on 4.4.2014.   Opposite Party No.1 submitted that after healing of ACNE (pimples) dark spots on the face are very common sequelae. A number of other factors like fidgeting, scratching, picking, popping up the pimples cause more damage and marks. Even the Exposure to sun or bright light worsens these. Rubbing or scrubbing can also darken these marks. The complainant might have taken some precautions as per instructions given by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. When the complainant first reported for treatment, her skin had suffered an almost irreparable damage by herself due to use of topical steroids on her face for a long time and a potent triple combination cream (mometasone, tretinoin and hydroquinone) for more than three months and these facts have been  noted  on the first prescription card of the patient/ complainant Ex.OP1/6. The Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that the complainant paid only Rs.8200/- for ten consultation visits and three sittings of hair reduction treatment as per detail Ex.OP1/10. No other amount was paid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 categorically denied that the complainant had paid more than Rs.25000/- to Opposite Party No.1. The complainant did not follow the proper procedure and proper sittings as per the terms of the policy. The complainant has not undergone full and proper treatment for the removal of pimple on the face of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant did not  turn up nor  reported the matter to Opposite Party No.1 regarding any damage on her face. All these allegations levelled by the complainant are baseless. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 qua the complainant.
10. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the complainant has violated the basic terms and conditions of the policy in question regarding any claim made against the insured and thus, Opposite Party No.2 shall process that claim that claim as per the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no privity of contract between complainant and Opposite Party No.2. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 qua the complainant.
11. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1 on 10.6.2013 for the removal of hairs on chin and pimples on her face.  Opposite Party No.1 treated/ managed these two diseases of the complainant as per the standard treatment protocols based on published guidelines by experts in the specialty, detail of which are Ex.OP1/6 to Ex.OP1/9, which are also produced by the complainant Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. Opposite Party No.1 has  categorically stated that the complainant was informed regarding the hair reduction treatment which was done  with   IPL (Intense Pulsed Light) and she was clearly explained  that  hair reduction treatment is not  permanent hair removal procedure and for this purpose multiple sittings are required (minimum 5-6), keeping in view the satisfactory response  which vary from person to person. Opposite Party No.1  has proved on record the medical treatment record Ex.OP1/6 to Ex.OP1/9 that when the patient firstly reported to Opposite Party No.1 for the treatment of her skin she had already suffered  an almost irreparable damage by herself due to use of topical steroids on her face for a long time and potent triple combination cream (mometasone, tretinoin and hydroquinone) for more than three months. Hence the use of these medicines can cause severe damage-thinning of skin, intolerance to local applications, sensitive skin, and increase in hair  growth and many other permanent serious defects. Recovery or restorations to normal is  extremely difficult and unlikely. The complainant could not rebut these averments of Opposite Party No.1 as mentioned in the treatment record of the complainant Ex.OP1/6 to Ex.OP1/9 as well as Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. The complainant had undergone only 3 sittings as against 5-6 sittings minimum for the hair reduction treatment as well as treatment for the removal of pimples (ACNE) from the face of the complainant. Not only this, the complainant has paid only Rs. 8200/- for consideration visits and 3 sittings. She could not produce any evidence to prove that she paid more than Rs.25000/- to Opposite Party No.1 as alleged by her in the complaint. She also could not produce any evidence that she had undergone full treatment i.e. minimum number of sittings and proper procedure for the treatment of removal of hairs on chin and pimples (ACNE) from the face of the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any medical record that face of the complainant has been disfigured allegedly due to the treatment given by Opposite Party No.1 nor the complainant has examined any medical expert/ doctor to prove that face of the complainant has been adversely affected due to medical treatment given by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. As such, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove on record any negligence or deficiency in medical treatment given by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant.
12. Resultantly, we hold that  the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 16.09.2015.                                                             (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member