Hair not growing after plasma treatment is not medical negligence: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently held that doctors cannot be held liable for medical negligence merely because a patient did not experience hair regrowth after Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) treatment [Dr Satish Kishornandan Arolkar Vs Sushil Mukesh Gaglani].

A Bench of Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra and Member Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta passed the ruling.

"It is also well established that all patients do not uniformly benefit from the hair growth factor treatments like PRP and some patients may experience no benefit. However, the same does not reflect on the competency of the medical practitioner in undertaking the PRP procedure or the efficacy of treatment," the NCDRC said.

The commission made the observation while setting aside orders which had directed Lifecell International Private Limited, its executive Chetan Purushottam, dermatologist Dr Madhuri Agarwal and plastic surgeon Dr Satish Kishoranand Arolkar (opposite parties) to pay compensation to a Mumbai advocate.

The case arose from a complaint by advocate Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, who had undergone three PRP sessions in 2013 to stimulate hair growth.

He alleged that he was assured positive results, but suffered pain and bleeding during the procedure without any improvement in hair growth.

He also claimed that Lifecell did not have a licence to conduct PRP or stem cell procedures.

The Mumbai District Consumer Forum had directed the opposite parties to refund ₹59,525 and pay ₹10 lakh compensation.

The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission later reduced the compensation to ₹6 lakh, while maintaining the finding of unfair medical trade practice and deficiency in service.

The NCDRC disagreed.

It found that the district and State consumer fora had wrongly treated PRP therapy and stem cell therapy as the same procedure.

The national commission explained that PRP involves drawing the patient’s own blood, processing it and immediately injecting platelet-rich plasma into the scalp to stimulate hair growth.

This process, it said, could not be equated with storing blood in blood banks or manufacturing blood components for sale.

The NCDRC also noted that PRP is an accepted treatment for male pattern baldness, but it does not work uniformly for all patients.

The NCDRC held that dermatologists and plastic surgeons are competent to administer PRP treatment unless there is a contrary protocol notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The NCDRC found no expert evidence to prove that the doctors had acted negligently. It also noted that Gaglani, an advocate, had access to Lifecell’s brochure and website and had signed the consent form before undergoing the procedure.

“There is no cogent evidence to assume that complainant had been misled,” the commission said.

It added that a doctor cannot be held negligent merely because the desired result was not achieved.

The NCDRC, therefore, allowed the revision petitions filed by Lifecell, Purushottam and the two doctors. The complainant’s revision petitions seeking restoration of the higher compensation were dismissed.

Advocates Sidharth Mahajan and Sumit Roy from Claritas legal appeared for Lifecell International.

Advocate Arjun D Singh appeared for Sushil Mukesh Gaglani.

Advocates Pankaj Bhagat and Ritwik Prasad appeared for Dr Madhuri Agarwal.

Advocates SK Khattri and SK Sarathi appeared for Dr Satish Arolkar.

[Read Judgment]