New Delhi: New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a private firm liable for conducting a transplant procedure without the necessary licence and govt approval. The commission emphasised that medical procedures must be performed by qualified professionals with licence and clinics must be properly registered and strictly adhere to established medical standards.The bench, comprising president Poonam Chaudhry, and members Bariq Ahmad and Shekhar Chandra, also found the clinic negligent for failing to deliver satisfactory results despite full payment. They stressed that patients must be fully informed about procedures, including associated risks, limitations, and expected outcomes.On May 22, 2025, the commission ordered the clinic to refund Rs 5,01,000 to the complainant, along with Rs 1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 30,000 for litigation costs. The commission noted that despite undergoing three sessions, the complainant observed no improvement— not even a 1% difference—in his hair condition, and the clinic failed to provide any explanation.Further, the commission found that the clinic, DHI Asian Roots (a unit of SPA Yoga Private Limited), did not produce any authorisation or licence to perform modern scientific hair implantation procedures and lacked government approval to employ doctors. Conducting such procedures without requisite licences and specialised expertise was deemed an unfair trade practice driven solely by financial gain.The complainant stated that the clinic failed in its duty towards consumers, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He pointed out that the clinic’s brochure guaranteed full hair growth or replacement in consultation with expert doctors. He also alleged the employment of unqualified staff and operation without the necessary licences. Despite paying Rs 5,01,000, he saw no improvement and filed his complaint in 2013.The clinic countered that the complainant had been fully informed of the pros and cons of the hair transplant procedures, and it was made clear that individual results may vary. They claimed all procedures were conducted professionally, even extending beyond medically recommended zones at the complainant’s request. The clinic argued that the complainant’s dissatisfaction arose from impatience and disregard for medical advice.
