DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.331/2013

Sh. Puneet Mittal

R/o 624-A, Ground Floor,

Gali No.6, Govind Puri,

Kalkaji, New Delhi-19

….Complainant

Versus

M/s Advanced Hair Studio

A-13, Ground Floor, Pamposh Enclave,

Next to GK-I,

New Delhi

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    :   03.06.2013    

 Date of Order            :   27.04.2023    

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       Facts of the case as pleaded by the Complainant are:

Complainant alleges to have been allured and induced to get a (Cosmetic) hair loss replacement treatment from M/s Advanced Hair Studio, hereinafter referred to as OP. Complainant was made to believe that the proposed strain by strain procedure will result into a full natural looking head of hair that looks like it has grown back over a period of time and will be like his hair replaced the same way as he lost them. Allured by the rosy pictures given by the OP, Complainant paid Rs.90,000/- twice, vide receipts dated 30.12.2012 and  14.04.2013.

  2.    It is stated that on 14.04.2013, OP treated the Complainant by removing the Complainant’s hair by shaving them off completely. However, after the treatment Complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the said hair were not natural as they looked dull and did not look like natural hair at all. It is next stated that though the OP promised that the said treatment will not be like a wig or toupee but it turned out to be a toupee which did not absorb itself into the skin of the Complainant and a thin layer of tape and gum was visible which caused mental agony and physical inconvenience around the pasted area.

3.      It is further stated that after the said treatment, Complainant was shocked and surprised as OP asked the complainant not to comb and further directed him to use CH hair spray on the new hair daily twice, to keep it in style and for it to stay in place. The Complainant was also advised to keep his hair in a manner that covers the forehead so that the tape might not be visible. Complainant was further advised to use only the products from OP i.e shampoo, Conditioner and spray etc. costing Rs.5,000/- per month and all this information was given to the Complainant  for the first time after the treatment was given.  Not only that, Complainant was advised to come for refusion after every 30 days and cost of the same was disclosed as Rs.2500/- per visit. The Complainant was further shocked when OP intimated him that the said hair will be lost in one year and thereafter the Complainant will have to get the treatment done again and pay the same charges all over again.

4.      It is further stated that Complainant after the treatment started suffering from headache, itching and irritation as wearing the toupee felt like burden on his head and the Complainant found it to be very uncomfortable. The Complainant had to seek medical advise regarding his physical discomfort and he was advised to remove the toupee. The Complainant only after one day i.e 15.04.2023 got the same removed and returned the same to OP. Thereafter, Complainant has been repeatedly requesting OP to refund the entire amount paid by him but to no avail.

 5.     Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Complainant approached this Commission with prayer for direction to OP to refund sum of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @24% per annum from the date of deposit; to award Rs.2,00,000/- by way of compensation for causing mental agony , harassment and Rs.5,500/- towards cost of litigation.

6.      OP filed its written version stating inter alia that the Complainant himself chose the treatment and he had been explained in detail the procedure to be adopted and entire factual position regarding the post treatment care and regular refusion required to be carried out. It is stated that Complainant signed the quotation containing terms and conditions and the declaration that the Complainant has understood the procedure its benefits and limitations and in acceptance thereof, the Complainant desired to proceed with the treatment. Copy of the signed quotation and declaration dated 30.12.2012 is annexed as Annexure R3.

7.      It is further stated that the Complainant was having the knowledge regarding the procedure and it was only after the payment was made, work order was placed for a customized skin / membrane  suitable for the client. It is submitted that skin bearing human version hair was fused with the help of OP’s patented technology. The Complainant willingly and happily got the skin fused and got the treatment done but later on skin which was fused was removed manually by the Complainant without any complaint or knowledge to OP . It is stated that the Complainant himself abandoned the skin  as he was not able to adjust to the new look.

8.      It is further stated that the skin, is real natural hair obtained at high cost for the Complainant. Such hair may have to be replaced, if proper hygiene is not maintained and proper care is not taken. It is not true that such hair would fall off. The hair attached to the skin is not   prone to falling unless combed badly so as to break it. It is next stated that the Complainant never came to OP with any complaint of itiching or headache which was allegedly caused due to the procedure. OP does not have any personal knowledge of allegations made by complainant in this regard. As regards the prescription of Dr. Bijender Singh filed by the complainant, OP states that there is no proof that the said Doctor is an expert or competent to comment on the SBS (Cosmetic procedure) done by OP.

 9.     However, it is admitted that the Complainant was not comfortable with the new look and the skin which apparently made the Complainant self conscious and led to physiological rejection of the new component in his look. It is thus reiterated that OP has successfully carried out SBS (Cosmetic Procedure) on the Complainant as is clear from the photographs annexed  as Annexure R1 and R2 of the Written Statement. It is thus prayed that as no cause of action is made out against OP the complaint be dismissed   with cost.

10.    Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the complainant wherein it is stated that OP admits that strand by strand treatment is nothing but pasting a toupee on the skin /membrane of the complainant which is nothing but cheating. It is reiterated   that pasting artificial skin on the head of the Complainant is like a wig which is kind of toupee pasted and it is not SBS grafting of hair as promised. Evidence by way of affidavit as well written arguments of both the parties have been filed. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard.

11.    On   perusal of the material available with the us   it is noticed that Quotation & Declaration for the said treatment was duly signed by the Complainant on 30.12.2012 and the treatment   was done on 14.04.2013 which makes it clear that it took about three to four months for the customized  skin  to be prepared.

 12.   It is hard to believe that Complainant at the time of treatment also did not get to know that an adhesive was applied to his scalp and the skin  was being infused, he  had an opportunity to refuse at that time as well. But he chose not to refuse he got the skin infused. It seems that Complainant did not exercise diligence like a person with ordinary prudence. 

 13.   It is also clear from the   agreement that OP-1 was providing different types of treatment such as ‘ Strand by Strand-Clinical’ and ‘ Strand by Strand-Cosmetic’.  As per the invoice Strand by Strand(Clinical)can grow hair in the areas of scalp where follicles are implanted during the procedure    But as the Complainant had opted for ‘ Strand by Strand -Cosmetic’ treatment, customized skin was prepared and made available to the Complainant after about three to four months. It is hard to believe that any prudent man   who would pay Rs.1,80,000/- for the treatment would not try and understand the difference between the two. The above facts indicate that Complainant was privy   to the fact that artificial skin   would be fused instead  of planting hair follicles on the  scalp, for them to grow .

14.    This Commission has gone through the   medical receipt annexed by the Complainant dated 15.04.2013 (day next to the treatment) which shows that Complainant was feeling uneasy, had headache and irritation on his scalp. Due to headache and irritation on the scalp complainant removed the skin on his own, the very next day. It was expected that Complainant should have at least contacted OP before removing the artificial skin. It is matter of common knowledge that anything new  or anything pasted on the skin would certainly cause some kind of discomfort. It is also noticed that Complainant has not advanced  any treatment/opinion from a dermatologist or a trichologist to substantiate his claim. Only because the Complainant had some discomfort would not make OP negligent  specially when the Complainant has himself signed on the quotation-cum-declaration form knowing very well about the treatment to be done

15.    The Complaint has been found as on facts to have not established any willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the service of OP.

  In view of the aforesaid discussion we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

  File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.