A Hyderabad consumer commission has ruled that cosmetic clinics cannot charge for aesthetic procedures without first disclosing potential side effects. The commission found a local skin and hair clinic guilty of unfair trade practice after a 31-year-old doctor’s acne treatment was abruptly halted midway when her dermatologist resigned.
The consumer body, therefore, ordered the doctor to be paid Rs 69,850, after noting that just offering another qualified dermatologist did not absolve it of liability, particularly after the complainant complained of severe skin irritation during treatment.
The clinic was held to have “failed to establish” that it had obtained a prior “informed consent” regarding the risks involved in the procedure.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, president B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy were hearing a complaint filed by one Dr Sumera Sultana against Sreyas Holistic Remedies Private Limited, which operates under the brand name Oliva Skin, Hair and Body Clinic, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice arising out of a cosmetic skin treatment package.
“There is no iota of material to show that the opposite parties have explained about the possible side effects/expected outcome of the procedure before taking/receiving the payment. In the absence of material evidence, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are deficient in rendering proper service and have adopted unfair trade practice in not informing the possible side effects before collecting the total amount for the total sessions,” the commission said on June 17.
The dispute stemmed from a skin treatment package purchased by the complainant in December 2024. After undergoing six sessions, she refused to continue treatment with another dermatologist following severe itching and skin irritation during one of the procedures. When the clinic informed her that the doctor who had been treating her had resigned and declined to refund the entire amount, she approached the consumer commission seeking compensation.
How dispute began
According to the complaint, Dr Sumera Sultana approached Oliva’s Himayatnagar clinic after searching for treatment for acne scars. She was encouraged to choose the clinic after her elder sister recommended it and clinic executives assured her of specialised dermatology services using advanced technology.
On December 22, 2024, she purchased a package comprising Tan-Face-Reviving 6S, Tan-Face-LT-8S and HydraGeneo-1S treatments by paying Rs 75,600 out of the total package cost of Rs 80,180.
Dermatologist Dr Anan Divya was assigned to conduct her treatment sessions.
The complainant underwent six of the planned 15 sessions, with five being conducted by Dr Anan Divya. However, during one session when Dr Anan Divya was unavailable, another dermatologist, Dr Sri Divya, performed the procedure.
The complainant alleged that the treatment resulted in excessive peeling of the skin near her eyes, causing severe itching and irritation. Because of that experience, she insisted that only Dr Anan Divya continue her treatment and declined to undergo further procedures with any other doctor.
Doctor resigned midway
When the complainant contacted the clinic on June 6, 2025, to schedule the remaining sessions, she was informed that Dr Anan Divya was on leave. A few days later, on June 17, 2025, the branch manager informed her that the dermatologist had resigned from the organisation and would not be available for further treatment.
Suspicious of the changing explanations, the complainant sought a copy of the doctor’s resignation letter. Although the clinic allegedly assured her that it would be shared within an hour, no such document was provided. Frustrated by the response, she demanded a refund. When the clinic declined to refund the entire amount, she issued a legal notice on June 28, 2025, before filing the consumer complaint.
Clinic’s defence
The clinic argued that there was no contractual promise that treatment would always be provided by a particular doctor. It submitted that all dermatologists employed by the clinic were qualified specialists trained to follow uniform clinical protocols and that another equally competent dermatologist had been offered to complete the remaining sessions after Dr Anan Divya resigned.
According to the clinic, the resignation was an unforeseen event beyond its control. It further contended that it had voluntarily offered to refund Rs 44,850, representing the value of the unused sessions, purely as a goodwill gesture despite having no legal obligation to do so. The clinic also relied on several Supreme Court judgments on medical negligence to argue that the non-availability of a particular doctor did not amount to negligence or deficiency in service.
Why commission rejected defence
- The commission held that the authorities cited by the clinic dealt with medical negligence and were not applicable because the present dispute concerned deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
- It observed that the clinic had not effectively responded to the complainant’s allegation that she suffered severe itching and irritation after undergoing treatment by another doctor.
- The commission also noted that the treatment records specifically mentioned Dr Anan Divya, creating a clear impression that she would conduct the complainant’s sessions.
- More importantly, the commission found that the clinic had produced no evidence whatsoever to establish that it had informed the complainant about the possible side effects or expected outcomes of the cosmetic procedures before accepting payment.
- It also found no material to show that the complainant had executed an informed consent acknowledging such risks.
- In those circumstances, the commission concluded that the clinic had failed to render proper service and had indulged in an unfair trade practice.
Relief granted
While declining to order a full refund because the complainant had already utilised six of the 15 sessions, the commission directed the clinic to refund the value of the unused sessions.
It ordered the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund Rs 44,850 towards the unused treatment sessions, pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs. The total monetary relief awarded came to Rs 69,850.
The commission directed that the amount be paid within 45 days, failing which the refund amount would carry 9 per cent annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
Significance
The ruling reinforces that cosmetic and aesthetic clinics cannot rely solely on standard treatment protocols when dealing with consumers. They must transparently disclose the possible risks and side effects of procedures before accepting payment and adequately address patient grievances when complications arise.
The decision also underscores that while hospitals and clinics may replace doctors due to unforeseen circumstances, they remain accountable for ensuring continuity of care and honouring the legitimate expectations created during the course of treatment.
Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Telangana contact: (040) 233 94 399 ) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.
The commission said that the clinic had produced no evidence to establish that it had informed the complainant about the possible side effects of the cosmetic procedures before accepting payment. (Image generated using AI) 
Share
