MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT Sh. Raman Sangra through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT Sh. Raman Sangra through his counsel has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:- i) To pay Rs.75,000/- being the charges incurred on my treatment ii) To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him iii) To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
2. In brief the case of the complainant is that the O.P. No.1 is running a business of hair transplant under the name and style of Recover Hair Transplant Centre/Hospital. In the advertisement given by the O.P. No.1, it was stated that the proprietor/manager of the O.P. No.1 is a hair transplant specialist and a member, of AHRS-India. On seeing the the advertisement, he approached the O.P. No.1 for hair transplant. On 09.06.2015, the O.P. No.1 had given him appointment for hair transplantation and he paid Rs.75,000/- vide receipt No.504. The O.P. No.1 planted the hair on his head and gave full warranty and guaranty for hair growth and proper planting of hair on the head. The O.P No.1 gave PRP injections after two/three months i.e four injections in a year, after transplant. He had taken all the medicines prescribed by the O.P. No.1 i.e. ointment/oil/soap etc, which were very costly. He used all the medicines/ointment for a year as advised by the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 also told him to cut the hair after ten months. He visited the O.P. No.1 after a year for taking PRP injection then O.P. No.1 permitted him to get his hair cut. However, after the cutting of the hair, he found that there was no growth. His head was as bald as it was before hair the transplantation, which shows that the O.P. No.1 has not transplanted the hair properly and with due care, due to which, he is having constant head ache and pain in the eyes. He has suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to the notice, the O.P. No.1 has filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and wrongful representation of the medial practices; that the present consumer complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service by the answering O.P. On merits, it is stated that from the photographs of the complainant before the treatment and after the treatment, it is evident that hair transplant has been done successfully. It is stated that the complainant has not followed the instructions given by the treating doctor after the hair transplantation. The complainant got trimmed his hair without the permission of the centre, which is less than 2 cm to show the scalp intentionally to extract money from the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof and prayer has been made with exemplary cost.
4. The O.P. No.2 has filed written version stating therein that the answering O.P. is liable to indemnify the doctor if he is found to be negligent. There is no negligence on the part of the doctor because no intimation was given to it by the doctor. Even, if any liability arises then the company is liable to indemnify as per policy terms and conditions. The answering O.P. is not liable to pay the claim arising from the performance of cosmetic plastic surgery, hair transplant, punch grafts, flap rotations etc. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof.
5. On being called upon to do so, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to C18 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/A to Ex.OP1/D and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Surinder Pal Sharma, Senior Divisional Manager of New India Assurance Company Ex.OP2/R1 and copy of Insurance Policy along with conditions Ex.OP2/R2 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully, including written arguments filed by the complainant.
8. The complainant has argued that at the time of hair transplantation, the O.P. No.1 assured him that there would be full growth. But after transplantation when there was no growth, he approached the O.P. No.1. On 25.7.2016, the O.P. No.1 telephonically asked him to send the latest photographs of his head. He accordingly, sent the same on the same day. On 25.7.2016, itself, he received a call from the O.P. No.1, again that if he is not satisfied then it is still ready to transplant the hair again. But he told him that he was not advised to take another risk for surgery, as he is having regular pain in head and eyes, after getting the treatment of hair transplantation from it. He requested the O.P. No.1 to refund the amount paid by him, but it refused to refund the same. He further argued that all the conversation between the complainant and Mr. Ashish Soni, Administrative head of Recover Hair Transplant was recorded in the CD, which has been placed on record as Ex.C18. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has submitted that the hair transplantation was done with due care and the complainant has not followed the instructions given by the treating doctor and got his hair cut without permission. Since, the complainant himself was at fault, therefore, he cannot blame the O.P. No.1 for his own fault. The O.P. No.1 is still ready to transplant the hair, free of cost, but complainant refused to get hair transplanted, thus, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and the complaint filed against it deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that as per terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured arising from the performance of cosmetic plastic surgery, hair transplants, punch grafts, flap rotation and etc.
9. Admittedly, complainant hired the services of O.P.No.1 for hair transplant and paid Rs.75,000/- vide receipt No.504 dated 09.06.2015, Ex.C2 to it. As per complainant, hair transplant was not done properly by the O.P. No.1, that is why the O.P. No.1 and its administrative head Sh. Ashish Soni, told him that O.P. No.1 is ready to retransplant his hair, free of cost. To corroborate this fact, he has placed on record a CD Ex.C18, wherein conversation between complainant and Mr. Ashish Soni i.e. (Administrative Head of Recover hair transplant centre), has been recorded. During the course of arguments, the said CD was duly played in the Court room, in the presence of the complainant and learned counsel for the O.Ps. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has not denied that the conversation has not been effected between the complainant and said Mr. Ashish Soni. The learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 has also admitted that O.P. No.1 is ready to transplant the hair again, free of cost. It may be stated that the admission on the part of O.P. No.1 to retransplant the hair, free of cost, is sufficient that at the first instance, it was deficient in providing services. However, the complainant when asked straight away refused to do so, firstly on the ground that he has lost faith in the O.P. No.1 and secondly he does not deem it fit to go in for surgery again as he is having constant pain in his head and eyes.
10. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to grant refund of the amount paid by the complainant to the O.P. No.1 Not only this, the O.P.. No.1 is also liable to pay compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant along with litigation expenses. It may be stated from the perusal of the copy of insurance policy, Ex.OP2/R2, it is evident that Kakkar Hospital was duly insured with the O.P. No.2 for the period from 30.12.2014 to 29.12.2015. However, as per terms and conditions of the policy, the claims made against insured arising out of cosmetic plastic surgery/ hair transplants are not payable by the insurance company. As such, no deficiency in services can be attributable against O.P. No.2 and the complaint filed against it is liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against O.P. No.2 and is allowed against O.P. No.1 and it is directed in the following manner:-
1. To refund Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 1.9.2016 till its realization
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant
3. To pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The O.P. No.1 is further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
10. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room. ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU) Dated .29.09.2017 PRESIDENT (SHAVINDER KAUR) MEMBER