Holding that a promise of a ‘100% cure’ for vitiligo amounted to a misleading advertisement, the district consumer disputes redressal commission, Mohali, directed a Nashik-based tattoo studio to refund ₹65,000 to a Punjab resident who underwent the procedure without any improvement.The commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the studio to refund ₹65,000 with interest at 9% per annum from March 16, 2023, within 30 days. (HT File)The commission observed that once the service provider acknowledged that tattoo ink could react differently to different individuals and required a skin suitability test before the procedure, it could not make a universal claim of guaranteed success. It held that such an advertisement was misleading and intended to attract consumers through exaggerated and unsubstantiated assurances.The complaint was filed by Mohan Chand, a resident of Govind Nagar, Naya Gaon, Mohali, who stated that he had been suffering from vitiligo when he came across thestudio’s advertisement promising a ‘100% cure within 45 days.’ Believing the claim, he approached Inkfinite Tattoo Piercing, Nashik, and paid ₹65,000 through UPI towards the procedure.According to the complaint, Mohan Chand travelled from Punjab to Nashik and underwent two treatment sessions at the studio. However, even after completing the prescribed procedure, he did not notice any visible improvement in the vitiligo patches. He repeatedly informed the studio about the lack of results, but instead of addressing his grievance, its representatives allegedly advised him to undertake additional visits, assuring him that the desired results would follow.The complainant also told the commission that he incurred substantial expenses on repeated travel, boarding and lodging while visiting Nashik for the treatment. After realising that the promised results had not materialised, he sought a refund of the treatment charges along with the expenses incurred. Even after serving a legal notice, the studio refused to refund the amount.In its reply, the studio denied promising a cure for vitiligo. It contended that it was a tattoo studio that provided camouflage artwork to conceal vitiligo patches rather than medical treatment for the disease. They further argued that tattoo ink responds differently to different people and that it had recommended a skin suitability test before the procedure. According to the studio, the complainant declined to undergo the test because he had already booked his return journey and insisted that the procedure be completed during his visit.The commission, however, found that the advertisement placed on record contained an unequivocal representation of ‘100% result’ within a specified period. It ruled that such a claim was inherently misleading because the service provider itself admitted that the outcome depended on individual skin compatibility.While the commission declined to award the complainant the additional amount claimed towards travel and other incidental expenses due to insufficient evidence, it held the studio responsible for inducing him to avail its services through misleading representations.The commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the studio to refund ₹65,000 with interest at 9% per annum from March 16, 2023, within 30 days. It further ordered that if the payment is not made within the stipulated period, the amount will carry interest at 12% per annum until actual payment. The commission also awarded ₹10,000 as consolidated compensation towards mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.