Laser treatment caused skin damage for this woman: Here's how much compensation she got

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kanniyakumari recently held a skin clinic liable for a botched hyperpigmentation treatment that left a 24-year-old woman with facial acne and skin damage

A Bench of President Y Gladstone Blessed Tagore and Member S Nagendran directed the clinic to pay over ₹2 lakh as refund, compensation, and costs.

Recording its finding on negligence and the harm caused to the woman, the Commission observed,

"Complainant (24-year-old woman) proved that the opposite parties (the skin clinic) committed deficiency in service. It would have given severe mental strain and mental agony to the complainant. Because of the negligence of the opposite parties, at the time of giving treatment, complainant suffered lot, with acne and pimples. So, the opposite parties shall refund, the amount paid by the complainant, for treatment..."

According to the case details, the complainant underwent treatment for hyperpigmentation at the clinic in February 2025 and paid ₹52,689 for the procedure.

She alleged that immediately after a Q-switch laser treatment, a rose mask soaked in hot water was applied to her face. It allegedly caused irritation, breakouts and persistent acne, forcing her to seek further treatment elsewhere.

The clinic, however, disputed these claims and maintained that proper procedure had been followed. It argued that an aloe gel intermediary had been applied before the mask and that the woman's skin condition worsened only after she discontinued the prescribed course and home-care products.

After examining the material on record, including photographs, medical bills, and communication between the parties, the Commission found the woman's version of events more credible.

It noted that the evidence pointed to skin damage following the procedure. It also observed that the woman had subsequently incurred additional medical expenses for corrective treatment at another clinic.

The Commission also said that there was no reason for any false claim by the woman.

"Complainant is a young girl of just 24 years old. Pimples and acne made the face of the complainant ugly... There is no reason, for the complainant, to file a false case against the opposite parties (skin clinic)," it said.

Concluding that the clinic’s actions amounted to deficiency in service, the Commission ordered a refund of ₹52,689 with interest at 6.5% from the date of filing of the complaint till disposal.

It also awarded ₹2 lakh as consolidated compensation for mental agony, financial loss, and negligence, along with ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

The Commission further directed that the amount be paid within one month, failing which it would carry an interest of 9% per annum until realisation.

Advocate A Joseph Ranjeev Das appeared on behalf of the woman (complainant).

Advocate PR Dhilipkumar represented the skin clinic.

[Read Judgment]