ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in not completely transplanting the hair on his head and thereby negligent and caused damage to his physical appearance and also of his physiological wellbeing and for burdening him of Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment and hence for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- from the OP and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant approached OP a health and beauty providing private limited having its clinic in Jayanagar, Bangalore.  He approached the OP for hair transplantation by way of surgery.  He had some reservation about the outcome of the surgery and transplantation and sought the details of the procedure.  The doctor explained that it would take months to show the result and that the hair will grow on its scalp.  He trusted the doctor and agreed for the surgery. The doctor also provided some medicines.

3.      After eight months of waiting, the growth of the hair on his head was incomplete.  It did not cover the front portion on left and right side.  There was baldness visible on the said area.  He waited for some more time to see that the hairs will come over the entire head.  Inspite of it, there was baldness on either side of his head and when requested the doctor to do it properly, the manager asked him to pay Rs.20,000/- extra for fixing a date for surgery.  Inspite of his several attempts, the doctor did not give appointment for further surgery. He made a complaint to the customer care. Due to Covid -2019 situation he remained contactless of OP. on March 5^th 2021 he visited the OP clinic to get the date fixed for surgery. There was a change in the resident doctor and he contacted the new doctor over whatsapp.  He assured that he would give a new date for surgery on 21^st April 2021.  When the date was approaching he requested for a confirmation and OP clinic told him that due to some reason doctor was not available and can’t perform the surgery.  When he demanded for surgery the doctor spoke to him rudely and blocked his number and he could not contact him.

4.      For the surgery he underwent he paid the amount by obtaining loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from financial institutions and the surgery carried out is not satisfied as it did not cover complete  head. There is baldness in front and a big scar is left and his physical appearance and physiological wellbeing has been damaged. He cannot longer to have the appearance as prior to the surgery.  He lost the trust in the doctor and the clinic. It is due to the negligence and misconduct of the doctor and hence prayed the commission to allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay the damages.

5.      Upon the service of notice, OP remained absent hence placed exparte.

6.      In order to prove the case, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents and the email correspondences. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            Partly in the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

8.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant.  From the same it becomes clear that the complainant obtained the services of hair transplantation and surgery to the whole of head/scalp.  The photographs produced and when the complainant was present to adduce evidence this commission observed that the right and left frontal portion the head of the complainant are bald, whereas the other areas are having the hair, due to the surgery carried out by the doctors of OP.  It is true that the doctors of OP did not carry out the surgery for providing the hair on the scalp of the complainant in its entity. The right and left side have been left which makes the look of the complainant awkward.

        9.     Ex.P5 is the letter written by the complainant to the OP, informing that there is incomplete hair transplantation and also to redo the surgery, for which OP demanded Rs.20,000/- extra.  The letter written by the OP customer cell on February 18, 2020, says that he sincerely apologies for the inconvenience caused, please provide some more time, so we can evaluate your case and revert to do so.  He has sought appointment from the doctor for the additional surgery.  OP has sent messages informing that next month second week the surgery would be fixed. Inspite of it, the correction surgery was not done by OP Inspite of request by the complainant.

        10.   In view of this and in the absence of specific defence which OP failed to take when the notice issued by this office upon the filing of this complaint was served, makes us to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not completely carrying on the hair transplantation over the head of the complainant, whereas it has done partially leaving the frontal left and right side, which clearly makes the complainant to look ugly.  Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

        11.   It is pertinent to note here that the complainant has paid the full amount for the hair transplantation to cover his full head, whereas the doctor of OP has done partially.  It is the duty of the doctor of OP to complete the surgery by doing correction surgery in the left over part.  Hence we direct the doctors of OP to carry out the correction surgery to the complainant over the left over area of the complainant is head within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the sufferance which the complainant is facing in respect of the incomplete transplantation of hair over his head along with interest at 10% p.a., and further direct OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to the doctors of OP to carry out the correction surgery to the complainant over the left over area of the complainant head within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest at 10% p.a., from the date of complaint for the sufferance which the complainant is facing in respect of the incomplete transplantation of hair over his head.
3. OP further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 05^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Receipts (7 in Nos.)

Ex P2: Copy of the SMS (2 in Nos.)

Ex. P3: Copy of the loan statement

Ex P4: Photocopy of the Surgery pictures

Ex P5: Mail correspondence

Es P6: Whatsapp conversation.

Ex P7: Phone call record statements

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

• NIL -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• NIL -

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

HAV*