The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kanniyakumari, has held V-Care Skin Clinic liable for deficiency in service and directed it to refund treatment charges of ₹52,689 and pay ₹2 lakh in compensation to a 24-year-old woman who alleged that a hyperpigmentation treatment at the clinic's Nagercoil branch left her with severe acne and facial breakouts. The order was passed on 27 May 2025.

Background and Complaint

The complainant, Y. Jershini, a resident of Kanniyakumari district in Tamil Nadu, approached V-Care Skin Clinic's Nagercoil branch after paying ₹52,689 for a hyperpigmentation treatment course. According to her complaint, she underwent a Q-switch laser facial treatment on 22 February 2025, after which the clinic allegedly applied a rose mask soaked in hot water directly on her face. Jershini claimed this caused immediate skin damage, irritation, severe acne, and facial breakouts.

What the Clinic Argued

V-Care Skin Clinic — whose corporate office is in Chennai — contested the allegations, stating that Jershini's skin had been assessed as dehydrated and that an aloe gel intermediary had been applied between the Q-switch procedure and the rose mask. The clinic further contended that the complainant had discontinued the prescribed treatment course and stopped using recommended home-care products, which it claimed caused the acne and pimples. It also maintained that it had been willing to refund the treatment amount and alleged the complaint was filed to damage its reputation.

Commission's Findings

After examining photographs, medical records, and conversation messages placed on record, the commission found merit in Jershini'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 stated in its order.

Rejecting the clinic's claim that the complaint was motivated, the forum observed: 'If the treatment was perfect and alright, there is no necessity for the complainant to file a false case against the opposite parties.' The commission also noted that Jershini subsequently sought treatment at another skin clinic, incurring additional medical expenses.

Relief Ordered

The commission directed V-Care Skin Clinic's Nagercoil branch and its Chennai corporate office to jointly and severally refund ₹52,689 with interest at 6.5% per annum from 26 May 2025 to 27 May 2026. In addition, the clinic must pay a consolidated compensation of ₹2 lakh towards mental agony, financial loss, and deficiency in service, along with ₹10,000 in litigation costs. All amounts must be paid within one month of receiving the order, failing which interest at 9% per annum will apply until realisation.

Broader Significance

This ruling underscores the accountability that consumer forums can impose on cosmetic and dermatological clinics, particularly where post-procedure protocols are disputed. Cases involving laser treatments and skin damage have been rising before district consumer commissions across Tamil Nadu, reflecting growing consumer awareness about aesthetic medicine. The verdict signals that clinics cannot deflect liability solely by attributing adverse outcomes to patient non-compliance without substantive evidence.