Court orders hair transplant clinic in Delhi to pay Rs 6.3 lakh after complainant sees no improvement

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed DHI Asian Roots, a private clinic, to refund Rs 5,01,000 and pay additional compensation after finding it guilty of performing a hair transplant procedure without a valid licence or government approval. The order was issued on May 22, 2025, following a complaint filed by a patient who alleged lack of results and unqualified medical staff, a TOI report stated.

Commission highlights lack of licence and medical standards

The commission observed that the clinic, a unit of SPA Yoga Private Limited, did not produce any government authorisation to perform modern scientific hair implantation procedures. It also failed to show approval for employing qualified doctors. The bench, led by president Poonam Chaudhry and members Bariq Ahmad and Shekhar Chandra, stated that conducting such medical procedures without proper licensing and expertise amounts to unfair trade practice.

The bench said, “It is essential that medical procedures are conducted only by qualified professionals holding valid licences, and in properly registered clinics that comply with established medical standards.”

Refund, compensation, and cost awarded to complainant

The commission ordered the clinic to refund Rs 5,01,000 to the complainant. Additionally, it directed payment of Rs 1,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and Rs 30,000 towards litigation costs. The complainant had undergone three sessions at the clinic but reported no visible improvement in hair condition.

The commission noted, “Despite the complainant undergoing three sessions, there was not even 1% improvement. The clinic failed to provide any explanation for the lack of results.”

Complainant raised issue of unfair trade and unqualified staff

According to the complainant, the clinic assured hair regrowth or replacement under the supervision of expert doctors as mentioned in its brochure. He alleged that the clinic employed unqualified staff and carried out procedures without proper medical licences. Despite paying the full amount in 2013, he did not see any results, which led him to file a complaint.

Clinic claimed procedures were informed and professional

The clinic defended itself by stating that the complainant was made aware of the pros and cons of the transplant procedure. It argued that results varied by individual, and that the procedures were conducted in a professional manner, including additional work at the complainant’s request. The clinic maintained that the patient’s dissatisfaction stemmed from impatience and not following medical advice.