BENGALURU: A visit to treat pigmentation turned into a costly ordeal for a Kadugodi resident after a clinic allegedly upsold her on an expensive cosmetic procedure, assuring her of guaranteed results that never materialised.The IV additional district consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered a refund, holding that a firm promise of guaranteed results cannot be withdrawn after a consumer has paid for the procedure.It all began in March 2025, when Sultana (name changed), a Kadugodi resident, approached the clinic for treatment of facial pigmentation. A representative recommended a package comprising ENNO Peeling and PRP (platelet-rich plasma) sessions.During the consultation, clinic staff also recommended CoolSculpting, a non-invasive fat-reduction treatment.Assured that the procedure would deliver effective results, Sultana underwent CoolSculpting on her upper abdomen at a cost of Rs 82,000. The treatment was financed through VLCC’s partner FIBE under an agreement signed on March 14.When the treatment began on April 5, the technician handling her session allegedly told Sultana that treating only the upper abdomen would leave the results looking incomplete and uneven. She was therefore advised to undergo the procedure on her lower abdomen as well.Acting on this advice, Sultana paid an additional Rs 82,000, taking her total payment to Rs 1.6 lakh.The second payment was also financed through the same loan facility. She was assured that visible results would emerge within 90 days, by the end of May 2025.However, even after the promised period had elapsed, Sultana saw no improvement. When she raised the issue with the clinic, VLCC allegedly acknowledged it and assured her of a repeat session. That session, however, was never provided.Adding to her troubles, Sultana discovered that a “loan processing fee” of Rs 12,240 had also been charged to her. When she withheld an EMI payment in July 2025 in protest, she allegedly faced pressure and threats of legal action.Her efforts to resolve the dispute through emails, personal visits and two complaints to National Consumer Helpline went largely unanswered.A legal notice issued by her on Nov 1 was also returned unserved. Sultana then filed a consumer complaint on Dec 17, 2025, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.In its defence, VLCC contended that the treatments had been performed in accordance with accepted cosmetology practices.It argued that Sultana had voluntarily opted for the procedures and signed consent forms acknowledging that results could vary. The company also contended that she had produced no expert opinion establishing negligence.The consumer forum observed that VLCC had not denied promising results within 90 days.“Cosmetic procedures carry inherent biological variances, but the OP (opposite party) cannot commercially exploit a consumer by promising specific timelines only to back out later,” it noted.The commission also found that after the first procedure failed, the clinic marketed a second, costlier treatment instead of offering a remedy or refund.The bench, comprising president Ramachandra MS and members Nandini H Kumbhar and Savitha Airani, directed VLCC Ltd to refund Rs 1.7 lakh.It also awarded Rs 10,000 for deficiency in service, Rs 3,000 for mental agony and hardship, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
