Consumer Court directs VLCC to Pay Rs. One Lakh Compensation to their Fat Loss Client for Negligence.
Famous beauty clinic VLCC has recently lost a case against a client in Kolkata.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Kolkata has directed it to compensate the client who sustained second-degree burn injuries while undergoing a fat reduction treatment offered by them.
The order came out in case titled Anna Louise Correia v VLCC Health Care Ltd.
The Commission remarked, The Consumer Court's order holds much importance in times when beauty clinics are a booming industry and on the other hand they turn face to liabilities by way of application of dishonest consents.
"A patient who has been injured by an act of medical negligence has suffered in a way which is recognized by the law and by the public at large-as deserving compensation. This loss may be continuing and what may seem like an unduly large award may be little more than that sum which is required to compensate him for such matters as loss of future earnings and future cost of medical or nursing care."
The Commission has asked VLCC to refund the amount paid by the Complainant for the fat reduction process, i.e., Cool Technique Procedure, along with additional compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.
The Commission has asked VLCC to refund the amount paid by the Complainant for the fat reduction process, i.e., Cool Technique Procedure, along with additional compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.
Read also : US-International law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher promotes NUJS ‘08 graduate Rahul Saha to Partnership
The Commission reasoned that VLCC didn't prove on record that any expert/ doctor were present when the process was being administered to the Complainant and this comprises a case of deficiency in services.
The Commission reasoned that VLCC didn't prove on record that any expert/ doctor were present when the process was being administered to the Complainant and this comprises a case of deficiency in services.
It stated,
"OPs failed to discharge even the initial burden. Therefore, it is the obligation on the part of the OPs to either notice the Doctor and/or Expert. In such circumstances adverse inference should have been drawn against the OPs. There is also no documentary evidence on record to establish that Mr. Tamal Manna, technician is highly qualified and trained to attend on each and every customer a high degree of care, caution and professionalism. For the kind of negligence, deficiency in service and the misrepresentation made by the OP-3 award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- is reasonable or commensurate with the loss, injury, and mental and physical pain and agony suffered by the complainant,"
The commission to cement its statement placed reliance on India Medical Association v. VP Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651, whereby the Court had held that services rendered to a patient by a Medical Practioner by way of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment, both medicinal and surgical would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2 (1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The commission to cement its statement placed reliance on India Medical Association v. VP Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651, whereby the Court had held that services rendered to a patient by a Medical Practioner by way of consultation, diagnosis, and treatment, both medicinal and surgical would fall within the ambit of 'service' as defined in Section 2 (1) (0) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Read also : NCDRC rules, Educational Institutions beyond the Jurisdiction Consumer Forums. [Read the Judgement]
Denying the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service, VLCC had contended before the Commission that the result of cosmetic treatment may vary person to person and any post-treatment adverse effect doesn't mean that they had done wrong treatment in a negligent manner.
Denying the allegations of negligence and deficiency in service, VLCC had contended before the Commission that the result of cosmetic treatment may vary person to person and any post-treatment adverse effect doesn't mean that they had done wrong treatment in a negligent manner.
The Legal Counsel of the clinic further added that the complainant was well apprised with the entire process, post-treatment effect, possible complications and had signed a consent form acknowledging the same.
On the submission, the Commission noted that the clinic had repeatedly assured the Complainant that the treatment would be conducted under the strict supervision of medical experts and doctors to avoid any complications. However, it failed to prove the same on record.
Read also : Consumer Forum: Retailer wins 10-year battle against Insurance Firm
The Commission thus applied reasonable skill and care, and accordingly held,
The Commission thus applied reasonable skill and care, and accordingly held,
"… In our considered view, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP-3 during the Cool Technique Procedure. Thus, the complainant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 2,00,069."
The order has been passed by HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty PRESIDENT, HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu MEMBER and HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly MEMBER 14-01-2020.
The order has been passed by HON'BLE MR. Swapan Kumar Mahanty PRESIDENT, HON'BLE MRS. Sahana Ahmed Basu MEMBER and HON'BLE MR. Ashoke Kumar Ganguly MEMBER 14-01-2020.
0 Comments