Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Error In Aesthetic Procedure Leads TJMG To Condemn Clinic For Burns And Compensation For Aesthetic And Moral Damages.
An aesthetic clinic condemned for failures in a laser hair removal procedure will have to compensate a client who suffered first and second-degree burns during a session held in Belo Horizonte.
The decision was recently made by the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais, which understood there was an error in the aesthetic procedure, even after the presentation of a consent form.
The case gained relevance by reinforcing the responsibility of clinics regarding the safety of the services provided.
-
Elevator Plummets From Tenth Floor in Commercial Building in Recife, Raising Concerns About Safety and Engineering of Vertical Transport Systems Used Daily in Urban Buildings
-
Cyclist Hit by Car in Sobradinho, DF Is Rescued After Traffic Accident This Sunday
-
Civil Defense Issues Alert and Advises Evacuation in 51 Streets of Juiz de Fora After Risk of Instability; See the Complete List of Affected Neighborhoods
-
Military Plane With Money Crashes In Bolivia, Leaves 20 Dead And Leads Central Bank To Annul 10, 20, And 50 Bolivianos Notes After Chaos At Airport
Court Decision Reinforces Clinics’ Duty Of Safety
The condemnation of the aesthetic clinic occurred after an analysis of the appeal presented by the establishment, which sought to overturn or reduce the amounts set in the first instance.
Although the court partially accepted the request, justice maintained the understanding that there was a failure in the execution of the laser hair removal, resulting in severe injuries.
According to the judges, the procedure exceeded the normal expected effects, characterizing laser hair removal with burns that required medical attention and kept the victim away from her professional activities.
Victim’s Testimony Was Decisive For The Conviction
In the process, the client stated that the procedure was performed inadequately, causing injuries in the intimate area.
She reported severe pain, the need for medical follow-up, and a direct impact on her personal and professional routine.
These elements confirmed the error in the aesthetic procedure, as the damage exceeded the common risks previously informed to the consumer.
Compensation Amounts Defined By The Court
In the initial decision, the court condemned the clinic to pay different types of compensation, reflecting the damages suffered by the client.
The amounts established were:
R$ 22,9 thousand for material damages
And R$ 20 thousand for compensation for aesthetic damages
R$ 10 thousand for moral damages
And R$ 4,8 thousand for lost profits
Furthermore, these amounts aimed to repair both medical expenses and the physical, emotional, and financial impacts resulting from the burns.
Clinic Appealed, But Responsibility Was Maintained
In appealing, the establishment claimed to have informed the client about the risks of the procedure and stated that there was no evidence that she properly followed safety guidelines, such as avoiding sun exposure.
The clinic also argued that it had already reimbursed part of the expenses and that the reactions would be temporary.
However, the case is under judicial secrecy, and therefore, the court did not disclose the name of the clinic, without preventing the maintenance of the main condemnation.
“Significant Burns,” Says The Case Rapporteur
Judge Rui de Almeida Magalhães, rapporteur of the case, partially recognized the appeal and reduced material damages by about R$ 4,3 thousand, a value already paid by the clinic.
Still, he was categorical in stating:
“The medical evidence and photos show that the injuries went beyond the expected and constitute significant burns.”
Thus, the magistrate also emphasized that a generic consent form does not exempt the service provider from ensuring consumer safety during laser hair removal.
Consent Form Does Not Exempt Clinic From Responsibility
One of the central points of the decision was the understanding that documents signed beforehand by the client do not eliminate the clinic’s technical duty.
For the TJMG, informed consent does not authorize poorly executed procedures nor minimizes the severity of the consequences.
This understanding strengthens consumer protection in cases involving clinics condemned for technical failures or professional negligence.
Judgment Was Unanimous Among The Judges
Judges Mônica Libânio Rocha Bretas and Marcelo Pereira da Silva fully supported the rapporteur’s vote, consolidating the understanding of the 11th Civil Chamber.
Furthermore, the decision reinforces an increasingly frequent position in the courts: aesthetic procedures, even those considered minimally invasive, require technical rigor, professional training, and well-defined safety protocols.
Case Raises Alarm For Consumers And Aesthetic Clinics
In addition to ensuring compensation to the victim, the judgment serves as a warning for the aesthetics sector.
Situations of laser hair removal with burns can result in significant condemnations, especially when an error in the aesthetic procedure is established.
For consumers, the case reinforces the importance of seeking qualified professionals and reporting any failures.
Thus, for clinics, it highlights that civil responsibility goes beyond signed documents, requiring effective care for the patient’s physical integrity.
-
Uma pessoa reagiu a isso.