Delhi consumer court orders hair transplant clinic to pay Rs 6.3 lakh to man who saw ‘not even 1% improvement'

Indian Express

4 days ago

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed a hair transplant clinic to pay Rs 6.3 lakh compensation to a client after finding it guilty of negligence in providing service. The Commission also noted that DHI Asian Roots was operating without a government licence to perform modern hair transplant procedures.
The complainant, Vivek Kumar, approached the DHI Asian Roots clinic in Safdarjung Enclave in 2012 before his marriage to treat baldness and paid Rs 5 lakh. He alleged before the Commission that he was promised results after 12 months, but even after three sittings, he could not notice 'even 1 per cent improvement' with his receding hairline. He filed a complaint with the Commission in December 2023.
The Commission's order, dated May 22, which followed an 11-year legal battle, directed DHI Asian Roots to refund Rs 5 lakh to Kumar, along with Rs 1 lakh for mental harassment and Rs 30,000 for litigation costs.
'…this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is negligence/ deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties (DHI) in not providing proper treatment to the complainant despite charging for the same. This is a case where opposite parties transplanted the hairs to cover bald area and created another bald area by over harvesting the donor area,' the Commission held.
'The OP/DHI-Asian Roots, a unit of SPA Yoga Pvt. Ltd… failed to produce any document showing authorization or license to perform modern scientific hair implantation procedures. They also lacked government approval to engage doctors…for such treatments,' held the Commission.
'The procedure conducted amounted to an unfair medical trade practice, carried out without the requisite licenses or specialized expertise, and appeared motivated solely by financial gain,' it added.
Countering Kumar's allegations, DHI Asian Roots argued that it provided professional treatment in accordance with medical standards and that the chances of success had been explained to him.
It also alleged that Kumar's dissatisfaction stemmed from his impatience and his 'disregard for medical advice'. It claimed that Kumar had been informed about the procedure's limitations and that all the pros and cons of the surgery had been explained to him.