Chennai, June 13 (IANS) The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanniyakumari, has held a skin clinic liable for deficiency in service and directed it to refund treatment charges and pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation to a woman who claimed that a hyperpigmentation treatment resulted in severe acne and facial breakouts.

The complaint was filed by Y. Jershini, a resident of Kanniyakumari district in Tamil Nadu, against V-Care Skin Clinic’s Nagercoil branch and its corporate office in Chennai after she underwent hyperpigmentation treatment at the facility upon paying Rs 52,689.

According to the complaint, Jershini underwent a Q-switch laser facial treatment and alleged that immediately after the procedure on February 22, 2025, the clinic applied a rose mask soaked in hot water on her face, causing skin damage, irritation, severe acne and facial breakouts.

Claiming negligence and deficiency in service, she sought a refund of the treatment charges and compensation for the mental agony and suffering allegedly caused by the improper treatment.

On the other hand, the clinic argued that the complainant’s skin was found to be dehydrated during assessment and that an aloe gel intermediary had been applied between the Q-switch procedure and the rose mask. It further contended that the complainant had discontinued the prescribed course of treatment and stopped using recommended home-care products, leading to the appearance of acne and pimples.

The opposite parties also maintained that they were willing to refund the treatment amount and alleged that the complaint had been filed to tarnish their reputation and extract money. After examining the evidence, including photographs, medical records and conversation messages placed on record, the consumer forum found merit in the complainant’s case.

“It appears that immediately after Q-switch laser procedure, rose mask soaked in hot water was applied on her face and this damaged her skin, resulting in acne and pimples. Complainant proved that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service,” the commission said in its order passed on May 27.

Rejecting the clinic’s contention that the complaint was motivated, the consumer commission observed that there was no reason for the complainant to initiate false proceedings against a clinic she had voluntarily chosen for treatment. “If the treatment was perfect and alright, there is no necessity for the complainant to file a false case against the opposite parties,” it said.

The order further recorded that the complainant, a young woman aged 24 years, had suffered considerable distress due to the skin condition that developed following the treatment. “It would have given severe mental strain and mental agony to the complainant,” the commission observed.

The consumer forum also took note of evidence showing that the complainant had subsequently undergone treatment at another skin clinic and incurred additional medical expenses. Holding the clinic responsible for negligence and deficiency in service, the consumer commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally refund Rs 52,689 paid towards treatment, along with interest at 6.5 per cent per annum from May 26, 2025, till May 27, 2026.

In addition, the forum ordered payment of a consolidated compensation of Rs 2 lakh towards mental strain, mental agony, financial loss and deficiency in service. The clinic has also been directed to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.

The commission ordered the parties to comply with the directions within one month of receiving the order, failing which the awarded amounts would carry interest at 9 per cent per annum till realisation.

–IANS

pds/uk