Consumer forum orders VLCC to pay ₹40k compensation to customer for laser treatment burns

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Central Mumbai has directed beauty care brand VLCC Healthcare to refund ₹47,200 along with interest to a customer who had paid this amount in advance for laser hair removal treatment that resulted in burn injuries.

A coram of President Vandana Mishra and Member Sanjay S Jagdale also found the company guilty of unfair trade practices for insisting that the complainant accept a credit note instead of refunding the amount she had paid in advance.

The Commission noted that the laser treatment procedure was not done under the supervision of any doctor, as mandated by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

"From the email communication it is clear that the Complainant did suffer burn injury and had to discontinue the procedure mid way in the first session itself. Though the invoice records about the non refund policy, it doesn’t warn the Customers of the possible side effects of the treatment. The Opposite Party has not proved that the procedure was as per protocol and by or under the supervision of any doctor...

...As per the response of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare dated 4th May 2023 to the Complainant’s RTI Application, the minimum qualification for conducting the Laser Hair Removal procedure is MD, Dermatology,” the Commission said in its November 5 order.

Besides the refund, the Commission also directed VLCC to pay ₹30,000 as compensation for causing physical and mental pain and for harassment, as well as ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

The customer, who booked a laser hair removal treatment session with VLCC, had paid ₹47,200 in advance. The treatment caused burn injuries during the first session itself, prompting the customer to stop the procedure midway.

The technician who was carrying out the procedure informed the customer that the burn injuries were not an issue. He applied a moisturising cream and assured her that she would be okay.

The complainant informed VLCC that there is no improvement in her condition and requested to speak to their doctor as the burn marks had become darker and extremely painful.

She sought a refund of the advance amount paid by her, which VLCC refused. She submitted that she even wrote to the CEO of VLCC and shared pictures of her burn injury with him, to no avail.

Instead of refunding the advance amount, VLCC offered to issue credit notes to the customer for availing any other of its services, which the customer refused to accept.

The Commission noted that the only defence submitted by VLCC is that they follow a non-refundable policy. However, it noted that the said amount was paid for different sittings or sessions and the customer stopped her treatment in the first session itself.

Thus, it noted that VLCC's non-refundable policy is unilateral, detrimental to the interest of the customers and amounts to an unfair trade practice.

"The Opposite Party (VLCC) can’t insist on acceptance of credit note instead of refund of the advance paid for the services as the Complainant being dissatisfied with the Opposite Party’s service may not be willing to avail any of their services in future. The Opposite Party can’t be permitted to impose their services on the Complainant. The Opposite Party thus not only been deficient in there service but also indulged into unfair trade practice by refusing to refund the advance amount and insisting the Complainant to accept credit note", the order stated.

It, therefore, held that VLCC was liable to refund the amount paid by the customer and compensate her for physical, mental and financial harassment.

Moreover, the Commission noted that the customer pointed out that the operations of VLCC are illegal as their clinics are not registered under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2016.

However, since this grievance was beyond the Commission's jurisdiction, it suggested that the complainant may approach the appropriate authority to address the same.

The complainant appeared in person before the Commission.

[Read Order]