Medical professionals cleared of negligence; Commission emphasizes higher burden of proof for medical malpractice claims.
In a significant judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the Commission has overturned previous findings of medical negligence and deficiency in service against Dr. Satish Kishoranadn Arolkar and Dr. Madhuri Agarwal, related to Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy for hair regrowth. The ruling, dated April 23, 2026, emphasizes the distinction between PRP therapy and stem cell therapy, both widely used procedures in medical practice, and clarifies the misconceptions surrounding the need for additional licenses or approvals under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The case involved a complaint filed by Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, an advocate by profession, who alleged that he was misled into undergoing PRP treatment for hair regrowth, which did not yield the desired results. The complainant had initially approached LifeCell International Pvt. Ltd. for preservation of umbilical cord during his wife's pregnancy, and during this interaction, he was introduced to PRP therapy by the company's marketing executive, Mr. Chetan Purushottam.
The procedure, carried out by Dr. Madhuri Agarwal and Dr. Satish Kishoranadn Arolkar, was claimed by the complainant to have been painful and ineffective, leading to allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The District Forum in Mumbai had initially ruled in favor of the complainant, awarding substantial compensation for mental torture and harassment, which was later reduced by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
However, the NCDRC found that there was no cogent evidence of negligence or deficiency in service by the medical professionals. The Commission highlighted that PRP therapy uses the patient's own blood plasma and does not require additional licenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The judgment underscored that medical professionals cannot be held liable merely for lack of desired results, as the efficacy of medical treatments can vary among individuals.
The NCDRC's decision also stressed the importance of a higher burden of proof required to establish negligence against medical practitioners, echoing principles laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark cases such as Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab. The Commission noted that the complainant, being an advocate, was aware of the procedure's nuances and had willingly consented to the treatment after reviewing available information.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in medical negligence claims and the need for careful consideration of expert evidence and established medical practices before attributing liability. The decision is expected to have implications for future cases involving medical treatments and consumer protection.
Bottom line:-
Medical Negligence - Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy for hair regrowth does not require additional approvals under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Negligence cannot be presumed merely due to lack of desired results in medical treatment.
Statutory provision(s):
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
Dr. Satish Kishoranadn Arolkar v. Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, (NCDRC)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2888094
