Skip to main content

Medical Negligence Ruling Shakes Hair Regrowth Industry

Admin May 12, 2026 2 min read 0 views
Medical Negligence Ruling Shakes Hair Regrowth Industry

A Recent Ruling on Medical Negligence in Hair Regrowth Treatments

Recent developments from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) have clarified the role of medical practitioners in providing Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy for hair regrowth.

Ruling Sets Precedent for Medical Practitioners

  • A Bench comprising Presiding Member AVM J Rajendra and Member Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta delivered the ruling, highlighting that patients' varied responses to PRP treatment do not reflect on the competency of medical practitioners.
  • The NCDRC emphasized that PRP therapy is a widely accepted treatment for male pattern baldness, but it may not yield uniform results for all patients.

Background and Case Details

A Mumbai-based advocate, Sushil Mukesh Gaglani, underwent three PRP sessions in 2013 to stimulate hair growth. However, the treatment caused pain and bleeding without any noticeable improvement in hair growth.

  • Gaglani also alleged that Lifecell International Private Limited, which conducted the procedure, lacked a license to administer PRP therapy.
  • The district consumer forum had ordered the opposite parties to refund ₹59,525 and pay ₹10 lakh compensation for medical negligence.

NCDRC's Decision and Key Findings

  • The NCDRC disagreed with the lower courts' findings, ruling that PRP therapy cannot be equated with blood banking or manufacturing blood components for sale.
  • PRP involves drawing a patient's own blood, processing it, and injecting platelet-rich plasma into the scalp to stimulate hair growth.

Implications of the Ruling

  • The NCDRC held that dermatologists and plastic surgeons are competent to administer PRP treatment unless there is a contrary protocol notified by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
  • The commission also noted that Gaglani, as an advocate, had access to Lifecell's brochure and website and signed the consent form before undergoing the procedure.

Conclusion

The NCDRC's decision has established a crucial precedent for medical practitioners involved in providing PRP therapy. The ruling underscores that doctors cannot be held negligent merely because patients do not achieve the desired results from treatment.

Rubenhair Clinic - Hair Transplant in Latvia. Learn more about our hair transplant services.

Share this article