Maharashtra Consumer Commission Orders Refund Of ₹18 Lakh In Laser Machine Misrepresentation Case

Mumbai: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has directed Delhi-based Timpac Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and its directors to refund over Rs 18.33 lakh to a Mumbai cosmetologist after holding that a laser machine sold to her for tattoo removal was allegedly misrepresented and incapable of performing the promised function.

“The complainant, a cosmetologist, has suffered substantial loss, lost patients, was compelled to refund treatment fees to multiple patients, and was burdened with continuing instalment payments for a machine that was wholly incapable of performing the purpose for which it was sold to her. The professional damage, mental agony, and harassment suffered by her are adequately demonstrated by the record. We are fully satisfied that Timpac Health Care Pvt. Ltd. is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,” the order copy reads.

The commission was hearing a complaint filed by a Ghatkopar-based practising cosmetologist, Dr. Parul A. Jaiswal, who runs Panancea Skin and Hair Clinic. According to the complaint, representatives of the company allegedly marketed the “QCLEAR LIGHTAGE” machine as an advanced USFDA-approved tattoo removal device capable of removing tattoos of any colour and size within three sittings without causing burns. Relying on these representations, Dr. Jaiswal purchased the machine in 2016 for Rs 30 lakh.

The complainant stated that she initially paid Rs 3 lakh in cash, followed by Rs 7 lakh through cheque upon delivery, and later paid instalments regularly, taking the total payment to Rs 18.33 lakh.

According to the complainant, the machine began malfunctioning within three days of installation and failed to deliver results for tattoo removal treatments. Instead, several patients allegedly suffered burns and scarring, forcing her to refund treatment charges to protect her professional reputation.

The dispute escalated after an email allegedly sent by former company representative Rajesh Dhar in September 2017 stated that the QCLEAR machine was “not for tattoo removal” and was intended only for toning and treatment of onychomycosis.

“The most pivotal piece of evidence in this case is an email dated September 15, 2017, sent by Mr. Manish Shukla and another email dated September 21, 2017, sent by Rajesh Dhar to the complainant, both of whom were, at all material times, acting as authorised representatives and technicians of the company. They had personally visited the complainant’s clinic, supervised installation, conducted training sessions, and guided her on machine protocols. These emails to the complainant unambiguously state that the QCLEAR machine is not meant for tattoo removal and is intended only for toning and treatment of onychomycosis,” the order copy reads.

The company denied the allegations, contending that the machine was USFDA certified and that any burns or treatment failures were caused by improper handling by the complainant. It also argued that tattoo removal is inherently difficult and cannot guarantee complete removal within a fixed number of sittings.

Also Watch:

The company further argued that the complainant was not a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act because the machine was purchased for commercial use. Rejecting the contention, the commission held that the complainant was running a small self-employed professional practice and therefore fell within the definition of a consumer under the law.

The commission also rejected the company’s reliance on judgments requiring expert reports to establish manufacturing defects, observing that the present case was based on “misrepresentation” rather than defective manufacturing.

“The complainant’s case is founded squarely on misrepresentation,” the commission observed, adding that the documentary evidence clearly showed the machine was sold as a tattoo removal device despite allegedly not being intended for that purpose.

Holding the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally refund Rs 18,33,340 with 9% annual interest from the dates of payment until realisation.

Additionally, the commission awarded Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment, and professional harm, along with Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/