The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has set aside orders of the consumer fora that had held doctors and Lifecell International liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in a complaint arising from an unsuccessful PRP hair regrowth treatment, holding that failure of the treatment to yield the desired result does not by itself establish medical negligence.
The dispute arose from a complaint filed by Mumbai-based advocate Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, who underwent three sessions of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy in 2013 for hair regrowth after being referred by Lifecell International. He alleged that he was assured positive results, was misled about the efficacy of the procedure, and suffered physical pain, mental harassment, and financial loss when no hair regrowth occurred. He also questioned the regulatory approvals and qualifications of the parties involved.
The District Consumer Forum had held Lifecell, its executive, and the two doctors liable, awarding refund of ₹59,525 along with ₹10 lakh compensation. The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission later reduced the compensation to ₹6 lakh while affirming findings of unfair medical trade practice and deficiency in service.
Allowing the revision petitions filed by the opposite parties, the NCDRC held that the lower fora fundamentally misunderstood the nature of PRP therapy by wrongly conflating it with stem cell therapy. The Commission clarified that PRP is a globally recognised procedure involving the use of a patient’s own concentrated blood plasma to stimulate hair regrowth and is distinct from stem cell therapy, which involves entirely different regulatory considerations.
The Commission observed that Dr. Madhuri Agarwal, a dermatologist, and Dr. Satish Kishoranand Arolkar, a plastic surgeon, were professionally qualified to administer the treatment and that there was no legal basis for the finding that they required special government declarations or licences to perform PRP therapy. It further found no expert evidence establishing negligence in the administration of treatment.
As regards Lifecell, the NCDRC accepted its case that it merely supplied PRP kits and possessed the requisite registration for its products, rejecting the complainant’s allegations of illegality based on RTI responses that had conflated PRP with stem cell therapy.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 (3) CPR 70 (SC) and Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, (2010) 3 SCC 480, the Commission reiterated that medical negligence cannot be presumed merely because a treatment does not produce the expected result. Since the complainant failed to establish breach of duty or negligent conduct through cogent evidence, the Commission held that the findings of the consumer fora would result in miscarriage of justice if allowed to stand.
Accordingly, the NCDRC allowed the revision petitions filed by the doctors and Lifecell, dismissed the complainant’s revision petitions seeking restoration of higher compensation, and set aside the impugned orders in entirety.
Appearances:
For Dr. Satish K. Arolkar: Dr. S.K.Khattri & Mr.S.K.Sarathi, Advocates.
For Lifecell International: Mr. Sidharth Mahajan & Mr. Sumit Roy, Advocates.
For Sushil Mukesh Gaglani: Mr. Arjun D.Singh, Advocate.
For Dr.Madhuri Agarwal: Mr.Pankaj Bhagat & Mr.Ritwik Prasad, Advocates.