The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that the failure of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy to produce expected hair regrowth cannot, by itself, be treated as medical negligence or deficiency in service.

The Commission observed that in medical science, no treatment can guarantee a successful outcome in every case, particularly in procedures related to hair restoration and cosmetic treatment. It said that a patient’s dissatisfaction with the result of a treatment is not sufficient to establish negligence unless there is clear evidence showing that the doctors acted carelessly or failed to follow accepted medical standards.

The matter arose from a complaint filed by a Mumbai-based advocate who had undergone PRP hair treatment in 2013. The complainant alleged that the doctors and the company involved had assured him that the therapy would result in hair regrowth. However, after multiple sessions, he claimed that there was no improvement and accused the medical professionals of misleading him and providing deficient service.

Earlier, the District Consumer Forum and the State Consumer Commission had ruled in favour of the complainant and awarded compensation. The doctors and the company later challenged those orders before the NCDRC.

While hearing the appeal, the NCDRC examined the nature of PRP therapy and noted that it is a recognised medical procedure used for hair restoration, but its effectiveness can vary from person to person. The Commission stressed that medical professionals cannot be held liable merely because the treatment did not yield the desired results.

The Commission further observed that there was no material on record to prove that the treatment was administered negligently or that the doctors had violated established medical protocols. It also noted that the complainant failed to produce expert medical evidence showing any deficiency in the treatment process.

Setting aside the compensation awarded by the lower forums, the NCDRC ruled that an unsuccessful medical outcome alone does not amount to negligence. It reiterated the settled legal principle that doctors are expected to exercise reasonable skill and care, but they cannot guarantee a cure or a particular result in every case.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the consumer complaint against the doctors and the company involved in the treatment.