Indian user says Apple Watch burned wrist; six months of redress attempts fail

Alleged burn and evidence

It has been reported that an Indian Reddit user, Southern_Chest_9084, suffered a burn on his wrist last September while wearing an Apple Watch, and that the device left a blistered, clearly damaged patch of skin. The case was picked up by tech outlets including Wccftech and reposted on Chinese site IT之家. The user says he supplied photos and other evidence to Apple support but has received no satisfactory explanation or resolution.

Customer‑service saga

According to the account, the after‑sales process was repeatedly frustrating: long hold times (reportedly at least 30 minutes), conflicting statements from different agents, and requests for repeated device inspections — including shipping the watch to Ireland for engineering analysis. The user asked for a home pickup because the nearest Apple Store is a 1.5–2 hour drive away, but was told by another representative that door‑to‑door collection is not offered. One support employee reportedly attributed the injury to a skin allergy rather than a device fault.

Retail confusion and mounting frustration

When the customer visited an Apple Store in person he says staff were unaware of the case and echoed the "skin sensitivity" explanation, leaving him convinced he had been bounced between teams and ignored. "I have been misled, passed around and ghosted," he wrote, saying the saga has dragged on for almost six months. Some Reddit commenters advised emailing Apple CEO Tim Cook directly in hopes of forcing a response.

Why this matters

Allegations of device‑related burns are sensitive in any market because they touch on product safety, warranty practices and corporate accountability. For Western readers unfamiliar with the region: India has been sharpening scrutiny of foreign tech firms’ local customer‑service and safety records even as it courts investment and market access. It has been reported that this specific case remains unresolved; who ultimately takes responsibility — the manufacturer, local retail, or a regulator — will determine whether it becomes an isolated complaint or a wider consumer‑protection issue.