Unfair terms at certain clinics that excessively restricted consumer refunds or prohibited the transfer of prepaid medical treatment fees for dermatology and cosmetic procedures have been reformed.

The Fair Trade Commission (FTC) announced today (July 19) that it has reviewed the prepaid treatment terms of 15 dermatology and plastic surgery clinics and corrected six types of unfair contract clauses.

As services involving prepaid medical treatment, such as package deals for dermatology and plastic surgery, have expanded, there has been a rising trend in consumer damages caused by businesses refusing refunds when patients request mid-term cancellations.

The number of damage relief cases related to prepaid medical treatments filed with the Korea Consumer Agency from 2021 to 2024 reached 1,150.

The figure increased approximately fivefold in three years, rising from 88 cases in 2021 to 449 cases in 2024.

In response, the FTC selected the top 15 clinics with the highest number of damage relief cases filed with the Korea Consumer Agency between 2023 and 2024 and required them to voluntarily correct their refund-related regulations.

The terms of these clinics included provisions stating that dissatisfaction or discomfort following a procedure could not be grounds for a refund, or that refunds were not possible after a certain period had passed.

Some clinics also imposed cancellation fees amounting to 20 to 30 percent of the payment amount if the contract was terminated mid-term.

Some clinics included clauses stating that they would not be held legally responsible, either civilly or criminally, for any damages resulting from the serious negligence or breach of duty by medical staff or employees. Others included clauses requiring patients to waive the right to pursue further legal action regarding treatments for which they had already received a refund due to side effects.

It was also found that some clinics had agreements stating that prepaid treatment rights could not be transferred or sold, or that the resignation of a designated doctor was not a valid reason for a refund.

The FTC stated that such clauses excessively restrict consumer rights and demanded corrections, which the clinics agreed to implement voluntarily.

The FTC ordered the clinics to revise their terms to allow for a refund of the remaining balance after deducting the cost of procedures already performed and a 10 percent cancellation fee, in accordance with the Consumer Dispute Resolution Standards, if a consumer requests a mid-term cancellation.

The commission also deemed clauses prohibiting consumers from filing lawsuits against the clinic as invalid under the Fair Transactions in Contracting Act, pointing out that these clauses unfairly shift the burden of damages caused by the business owner's intent or negligence onto the customer.

Prohibiting consumers from filing any civil or criminal lawsuits against the clinic was also interpreted as a violation of the Fair Transactions in Contracting Act.

Accordingly, the FTC demanded the deletion of clauses that evade legal responsibility and required the inclusion of new provisions stating that the clinic will compensate for damages caused by its own intent or negligence.

Furthermore, the FTC requested that terms be improved to allow for the free transfer of prepaid treatment rights to third parties, as the transfer and assignment of claims are generally permitted under the Civil Act.

It was also mandated that refunds be made possible if a consumer does not agree to the assignment of substitute medical staff following the resignation of a designated doctor.

The FTC plans to continue improving standards for remaining balance refunds and unfair transfer prohibition clauses in the prepaid medical sector, where cancellation and refund disputes are frequent.

The FTC also plans to review the establishment of standard terms and conditions that could be applied to all clinics in the future.

(Photo: Yonhap News)