Woman allegedly suffers pain and redness in eye after free lash service by trainee at Tai Seng salon
A woman said she experienced physical pain after an eyelash treatment at a beauty salon and is seeking “accountability” about customer safety.
The salon has disputed her allegations, noting that there is no medical attribution linking her symptoms specifically to the lash procedure.
Stomper Anonymous said she visited Perky Lash’s Tai Seng Street outlet on May 21 at around 4.30pm for a free lash extension service performed by a trainee.
She had learnt from a friend that the salon was looking for lash models, and having had positive experiences with other establishments, decided to go for it.
However, the experience left the 21-year-old university student far from satisfied.
“No terms and conditions or waiver were provided to me beforehand, and I was not informed in advance regarding who the trainee was,” she alleged.
“During the procedure, the senior lash technician left the trainee alone with me for approximately 40 minutes without supervision. When she returned, she realised the trainee had even used the wrong lashes on me.”
Anonymous said this raised “immediate concerns” about the salon’s safety standards.
Stomper worried about blindness after persistent symptoms
She alleged experiencing stinging and tearing in her right eye immediately after the service. It was around 7pm by then.
“It felt as though the products used had entered my eye,” said Anonymous, who thought the sensation would subside eventually.
Instead, she suffered visible redness, soreness, irritation and pain that made it difficult to close her eyes, said the Stomper, adding that this persisted for the next two days.
She visited a doctor at Northeast Medical Group in Sengkang on May 22, where she incurred $78.64 in medical expenses.
“The condition was determined as a highly likely extreme irritation from (a) chemical burn, which has the possibility to cause blindness,” she said.
Anonymous, who shared photos with Stomp showing redness in one eye, described her condition as a physical injury.
Hoping to seek reimbursement for her medical fees, Anonymous contacted Perky Lash.
She said: “The salon refused responsibility and instead blamed the incident on a possible ‘sensitivity or allergic reaction’ despite the fact that I have been doing eyelash extensions regularly for almost a year and never had any such issues.”
Anonymous shared screenshots that show Perky Lash saying it was unable to reimburse her medical fees as the procedure was a “complimentary model service”.
Instead, the salon offered to remove her lash extensions for free and a complimentary cleansing kit.
A point of contention between both parties was whether the service was performed under full supervision.
Perky Lash had also requested the Stomper to return to the salon for an in-person assessment, but she declined.
Salon says no medical diagnosis linking Stomper’s symptoms to lash service
In response to Stomp’s queries, a Perky Lash spokesperson said it takes customer safety and feedback seriously.
“We are very sorry to hear about the customer’s experience. We definitely understand the concerns and distress raised regarding the matter,” the spokesperson said.
“As with many beauty procedures involving adhesives, sensitivities or irritation may occasionally occur, particularly around the eye area.
“During lash procedures, customers are advised to keep their eyes closed to minimise potential irritation from adhesive fumes, and guidance is provided throughout the session.”
A post-treatment photo was also taken following the session as part of this process, with no immediate concerns brought to the salon’s attention at that time, said the spokesperson, adding that staff remained available to assist after the appointment.
According to the spokesperson, Perky Lash had reached out to the customer upon receiving feedback about her discomfort and invited her to return to the salon for an in-person assessment.
The spokesperson explained that an in-person assessment is part of the Perky Lash’s standard process for customer concerns. This allows the salon to “properly review the matter, assess the lash application, and better understand the circumstances before determining an appropriate resolution, including whether reimbursement or other support may be suitable”.
“To date, an in-person assessment has not been possible despite our request for the customer to return to the salon,” the spokesperson said.
Perky Lash also noted that the customer had sought medical treatments.
The salon shared with Stomp a doctor’s memo that it had received, but said: “However, we have not been provided with a medical diagnosis attributing the condition to a chemical burn or specifically linking the symptoms to the lash procedure.”
Stomp understands that the salon’s review of internal records, including CCTV footage of its premises, indicate that the training session was conducted fully under supervision, with the senior trainer present in the room throughout the procedure.
The spokesperson added: “We would like to reiterate that customer wellbeing and satisfaction are always of utmost importance to us, and we remain committed to maintaining appropriate service and safety standards in our salon.
“We are grateful for our customers’ trust and support, reflected in all the positive reviews across our platforms, and we strive to continuously improve our service and customer experience.”
Stomper never returning to salon
Anonymous told Stomp that she would not be returning to the salon.
She explained: “I have already provided them with sufficient evidence and I also do not feel safe for them to handle my eye area again.
“They continued to refuse compensation or admit responsibility and told me to report to relevant authorities if I wished to.”
Anonymous said she has since reported the matter to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case).
She feels that the salon should not “refuse responsibility” due to the physical pain she suffered after the lash extension service “with possible blindness”.
“As a salon providing beauty services to customers, whether paid or complimentary, I’m sure the salon has a duty of care to ensure treatments are performed safely and professionally under their establishment”, she added.
In particular, the salon’s response and handling of the incident did not sit well with Anonymous.
“I would like to highlight that this initially began as a small matter to me, where I only wanted medical compensation, but it became more concerning due to the salon’s refusal to take responsibility and persisting in me going down to the shop when I have already provided more than enough evidence.”
The Stomper did not remove the lash extensions as she did not believe they were the cause of her condition. Rather, she took issue with what she felt was “improper handling of products” during the procedure.
“Based on the immediate stinging after the service and the subsequent redness, I believe there was excessive exposure or a high dosage of the lash adhesive or related chemical products to my right eye, which caused the likely chemical irritation.”
Anonymous told Stomp on June 11 that the redness in her eye has mostly subsided. However, there is still some pain and discomfort, especially when she closes her eyes.
“This incident has caused me significant distress where I genuinely feared potential vision loss,” she added.
Stomp has contacted Case for more info.
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
