NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Bengaluru has dismissed a complaint filed by a woman against Dr. Jamuna Pai’s SkinLab, ruling that negligence in cosmetic treatment cannot be established without expert medical evidence.The complainant, Monika Kiran, had visited the clinic after coming across its advertisements promoting treatments for acne, pigmentation, facial contouring and laser hair reduction.She alleged that the clinic’s doctors persuaded her to undergo Glutathione IV therapy and Laser Hair Reduction (LHR) procedures, assuring her of better skin condition and appearance.The complainant alleged that after the very first session, she noticed increased acne on her face and thick hair growth at the sites where LHR was conducted.She informed the doctor over WhatsApp and asked to stop the treatment, but was pushed to attend a second session. After that, her condition worsened further and her face became fully covered with acne.Having paid around Rs 3.5 lakh for the treatment, she sent legal notices in July 2024 seeking a refund. When the clinic did not respond, she approached the Commission.What did the clinic saidThe clinic and its doctors denied all the allegations. They pointed out that the complainant had first visited the clinic with complaints of acne, facial hair and tan — details she had herself recorded in her own handwriting on the client card.They also noted that she had voluntarily signed consent forms which clearly stated that medicine is not an exact science and that no guarantee can be made regarding results.The clinic further argued that she had not completed the prescribed course of sessions and had been simultaneously undergoing treatment from other doctors — something she was warned against, as concurrent treatments could cause cross-reactions.What did the commission heldThe Commission, after examining the evidence, found that while photographs showed some improvement in tan removal, the complainant had not produced any expert medical opinion to show that the procedures caused her the alleged complications.Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jyothidevi vs. Suketh Hospital and Others, the Commission noted that “the medical practitioner will be held liable for the negligence only in circumstances when their conduct falls below the standards of reasonably competent practitioner.”The Commission further noted that the complainant had not denied taking simultaneous treatment from other doctors, nor explained whether a combination of parallel treatments could have triggered the adverse effects.“In absence of cogent evidence the mere allegations of the complainant are not sufficient for us to find out negligence on the part of the opposite party,” the Commission said, dismissing the complaint with no order as to costs.
