The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that doctors cannot be held liable for medical negligence merely because a patient did not witness hair regrowth after undergoing Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) treatment.
The Bench of Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra and Member Anoop Kumar Mendiratta set aside the orders directing Lifecell International Private Limited, its executive Chetan Purushottam, dermatologist Madhuri Agarwal and plastic surgeon Satish Kishoranand Arolkar to pay compensation to Mumbai-based Advocate Sushil Mukesh Gaglani. The Commission observed that PRP therapy did not produce uniform results in every patient.
The dispute arose after Gaglani underwent three PRP sessions in 2013 for hair regrowth treatment. He alleged that he had been assured positive results, but instead suffered pain and bleeding during the procedure without any improvement in hair growth. He also claimed that Lifecell lacked the licence required to conduct PRP or stem cell procedures.
The Mumbai District Consumer Forum had directed the opposite parties to refund Rs 59,525 and pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation. Subsequently, the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission reduced the compensation amount to Rs 6 lakh while upholding findings of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
However, the NCDRC disagreed with the findings of the lower consumer forum. The Commission observed that the district and State commissions had wrongly equated PRP therapy with stem cell therapy. It explained that PRP treatment involved drawing a patient’s own blood, processing it and reinjecting platelet-rich plasma into the scalp to stimulate hair growth.
According to the Commission, this process could not be compared with blood storage or manufacturing blood components for commercial sale. It further noted that PRP was a recognised treatment for male pattern baldness, though its effectiveness may vary from patient to patient. Dermatologists and plastic surgeons were qualified to administer PRP treatment unless any contrary protocol is issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, added NCDRC.
The Commission observed that it did not find any expert evidence establishing negligence on the part of the doctors. It also recorded that Gaglani, being an advocate, had access to Lifecell’s brochure and website and had signed a consent form before undergoing the treatment. There was no real evidence that the patient was misled, it said, adding that just because a treatment didn’t work as expected didn’t mean the doctor did something wrong.
The NCDRC accordingly allowed the revision petitions filed by Lifecell, Purushottam and the two doctors, while dismissing the complainant’s plea seeking restoration of the higher compensation amount.
The post Failed hair regrowth after PRP treatment not medical negligence: NCDRC appeared first on India Legal.