Hair did not grow after regrowth therapy? National Consumer Commission says can't blame doctors if treatment fails

NEW DELHI: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that failure of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) treatment to deliver the desired hair regrowth cannot directly amount to medical negligence or deficiency in service. Setting aside the compensation awarded by the consumer forum, the commission ruled that doctors cannot be held liable merely because a medical procedure does not produce expected outcomes, as per Bar and Bench Report.

A bench comprising Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra and Member Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the ruling.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Mumbai-based advocate Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, who underwent three PRP sessions in 2013 to stimulate hair growth. The treatment was administered by dermatologist Dr Madhuri Agarwal and plastic surgeon Dr Satish Kishoranand Arolkar, allegedly after assurances of positive results given by Chetan Purushottam, an executive of Lifecell International Private Limited, which supplied the PRP kits.

After the treatment failed to produce hair regrowth, and the complainant alleged he suffered pain and bleeding during the procedure, Gaglani approached the consumer forum alleging medical negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He further contended that he had been misled into believing the therapy would guarantee hair growth, and claimed that Lifecell did not have a licence to conduct PRP or stem cell procedures.

The Mumbai District Consumer Forum had initially directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 59,525 and pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation. The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission later reduced the compensation to Rs 6 lakh while maintaining the finding of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The NCDRC, however, overturned both orders — allowing the revision petitions filed by Lifecell, Purushottam and the two doctors, while dismissing the complainant's revision petitions seeking restoration of the higher compensation, according to a report by Bar and bench.

What led NCDRC to overturn the compensation order

The bench observed that PRP therapy is a recognised medical procedure and that lack of desired results alone cannot establish medical negligence. The commission emphasised that medical outcomes vary from person to person and unsuccessful treatment cannot automatically be treated as proof of deficiency in a doctor's service.

A significant finding of the NCDRC was that the district and state consumer forums had wrongly treated PRP therapy and stem cell therapy as the same procedure. The national commission clarified that PRP involves drawing the patient's own blood, processing it and injecting platelet-rich plasma into the scalp to stimulate hair growth — a process that cannot be equated with storing blood in blood banks or manufacturing blood components for sale.

The bench further noted that the complainant had not produced any expert evidence to show that the doctors deviated from accepted medical standards during the treatment. It also noted that Gaglani, being an advocate, had access to Lifecell's brochure and website and had signed the consent form before undergoing the procedure, weakening allegations of coercion or misrepresentation.

The NCDRC also rejected allegations against Lifecell International, holding that dermatologists and plastic surgeons are competent to administer PRP treatment unless a contrary protocol is notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.