NCDRC Rules Failed PRP Hair Treatment Alone Does Not Amount To Medical Negligence

In Dr Satish Kishornandan Arolkar Vs Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled that doctors cannot be held guilty of medical negligence merely because a patient did not get the expected result after Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) treatment for hair growth.

A Bench comprising Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra and Member Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta set aside earlier consumer forum orders that had directed Lifecell International Private Limited and associated doctors to pay compensation to a Mumbai-based advocate who underwent PRP treatment in 2013.

The complainant, advocate Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, had undergone three PRP sessions for hair regrowth. He alleged that he was assured positive results before the treatment. According to him, the procedure caused pain and bleeding, but failed to improve hair growth.

He also claimed that Lifecell did not possess the required licence for conducting PRP or stem cell procedures. Based on these allegations, the Mumbai District Consumer Forum had ordered refund of ₹59,525 along with compensation of ₹10 lakh.

Later, the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission reduced the compensation amount to ₹6 lakh. However, it continued to hold the doctors and company responsible for unfair medical trade practice and deficiency in service.

The NCDRC disagreed with the findings of both lower forums. It observed that the earlier forums wrongly treated PRP therapy and stem cell therapy as identical procedures, despite them being different in nature.

Explaining the process, the Commission said PRP treatment involves drawing blood from the patient, processing it, and injecting platelet-rich plasma into the scalp to stimulate hair growth. The Commission clarified that this procedure cannot be compared with storage or commercial handling of blood components.

The Commission further noted that PRP is a recognised treatment for male pattern baldness, but medical science does not guarantee equal results for every patient. Some individuals may benefit, while others may not see any improvement at all.

“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 observed.

The Commission also held that dermatologists and plastic surgeons are qualified to administer PRP treatment unless any contrary protocol is specifically notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Importantly, the NCDRC found no expert evidence proving negligence on the part of the doctors. It also recorded that the complainant had access to brochures and information available on Lifecell’s website before consenting to the procedure.

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

The NCDRC ultimately allowed the revision petitions filed by Lifecell, its executive Chetan Purushottam, dermatologist Dr Madhuri Agarwal and plastic surgeon Dr Satish Kishoranand Arolkar, while dismissing the complainant’s plea seeking restoration of higher compensation.