A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Tamil Nadu’s Kanniyakumari has directed a skincare clinic to refund treatment charges and pay a total of Rs 2.6 lakh to a 24‑year‑old woman after a hyperpigmentation procedure caused severe acne and facial damage, the commission’s order dated May 27 shows, according to a report in The Indian Express.
Treatment, alleged negligence and immediate harm
The complainant paid Rs 52,689 in December 2024 for a hyperpigmentation treatment at the clinic. She says the clinic administered a Q‑switch laser facial and, immediately afterward, applied a rose mask soaked in hot water. She alleged the post‑procedure application damaged her skin, causing irritation, breakouts and acne that required additional medical care and inflicted mental distress.
The clinic denied negligence. It told the commission the patient’s skin was naturally dehydrated and oily, that aloe vera gel had been applied between the laser session and the rose mask, and that the patient had failed to continue the prescribed home‑care regimen—factors it argued could explain the subsequent skin problems. The clinic also suggested the complaint was aimed at defaming its reputation and securing money, The Indian Express report added.
Commission finds evidence credible
After reviewing photographs, medical records and conversation logs exchanged between the parties, the bench led by Y Gladstone Blessed Tagore and member S Nagendran, found the woman’s account credible. The commission noted there was no necessity for the complainant to file a false case simply to defame the clinic since she had voluntarily selected it for treatment.
The commission specifically accepted evidence that a hot‑water‑soaked rose mask had been applied immediately after the laser procedure and concluded this caused the skin damage, leading to acne and pimples. It held the clinic guilty of deficiency in service and negligence that produced “severe mental strain and mental agony” for the complainant.
Orders, compensation and interest
The commission ordered the clinic to refund the treatment fee of Rs 52,689 with interest and to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs 2,00,000 for mental agony, financial loss and deficiency in service, along with Rs 10,000 as litigation cost. The order requires payment within one month of receiving the copy; failure to comply will attract 9% interest per annum until realisation.
Separately, a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh, directed a retailer to refund Rs 82 charged in excess to a customer and to pay Rs 7,000 in compensation and costs. A bench comprising president D Sreedevi and members Y Sundara Rao and Dr SA Sameera found that selling 100 grams of almonds above the maximum retail price (MRP) constituted an unfair trade practice. The commission said the complainant’s evidence was unchallenged and ordered repayment of the excess amount with interest and compensation.
Both rulings reinforce consumer protections against deficient service and unfair trade practices. Medical and cosmetic clinics are reminded to follow post‑procedure protocols carefully, document consent and aftercare advice, and ensure staff training to avoid complications. Retailers are similarly warned that adherence to Maximum Retail Price (MRP) is mandatory and that overcharging can attract penalties and compensation.