Date of filing:- 01/08/2018.
Date of Order:-11/03/2020.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 55 of 2018
Mamata Debta, W/o Sudhir Kumar Debta, aged about 41(forty one) years, Occupation- House Wife, R/o. Bargarh, Shaktinagar, Ward No.11(eleven) Po/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Dr. Archana Agrawal, W/o Praveen Kumar Agrawal, aged about 40(forty) years, Occupation- Dental Surgeon, at Sir Multi Specialty Hospital, Bhatli Chowk, N.H.6(six), Bargarh.
Praveen Kumar Agrawal, aged about 44(forty four) years, Proprietor Sai Multi Specialty Hospital,
Both R/o. Bargarh, Sai Multi Specialty Hospital, Bhatli Chowk, N.H.6(six), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri R.K.Meher, Advocate with associate Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties :- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.11/03/2020. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
In nut shell the case of the Complainant that she felt severe pain on the left upper side of her teeth as such on Dt.20.03.2018 she went to the Sai Multi Specialist Hospital of the Opposite Party No.2two) wherein she consulted with the Opposite Party No.1(one) and in the process the Opposite Party No.1(one) gave her some initial treatment and advised her to conduct some test on her body and come to her on Dt.25.03.2018 whereby the Complainant conducted such tests like X-ray of her teeth, F.B.S., P.P.B.S. and on perusal of the said test report the Opposite Party No.1(one) advised her to treat her with root canal therapy on the No.5(five) & No.6(six) of her teeth so that the pain on her teeth would be clear.
As such on her advice the Complainant agreed upon for the said root canal treatment and on the instruction of the Opposite Party No.1(one), she deposited an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only in the said hospital of the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.25.03.2018 and as per the appointment of the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.28.03.2018 she undertook the treatment and the Opposite Party No.1(one) cutted the teeth of the Complainant in to (crown cut) and again on her advice for capping the same treated teeth she paid further amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only with the Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.28.03.2018, fixing the date of such capping purpose on Dt. 31.03.2018 and accordingly on Dt. 31.03.2018 the capping of the teeth of the Complainant done by further payment of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees six thousand)only with the Opposite Party No.2(two) on the Advice of the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.31.03.2018, then the Opposite Party No.1(one) assured her that within 2(two) to 3(three) days she would get complete relief from pain on her teeth and discharged her from her, but the Complainant did not get relief from pain even after three days rather it aggravated for which she had to run to the Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.03.04.2018 wherein again the Opposite Party No.1(one) cut some portion of the said crown cap on her teeth and again assured her to get relief from pain but it did not stop for which again on dt.13.04.2018 the Opposite Party No.1(one) treated her further with lesser treatment and gave her some medicine with an assurance to get relief, but she did not get any relief and realized that she was not given proper treatment and has been neglected, which in her view amounts to deficiencies of service and medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.2(two).
However being disappointed with the callous and neglected treatment of Opposite Party No.1(one) on Dt.15.04.2018 she went to the clinic of another Doctor namely Dr.Anup Kumar Satpathy( Professor and Gold medalist in dental surgery) at Sambalpur whereby she was examined by him with X-ray, and found that the root canal treatment on her teeth No.5(five) has not been properly conducted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) and as such another root canal treatment was required and in the process of such treatment the No.5(five) teeth of the Complainant broken then further root canal treatment was done on Dt.05.05.2018 by the said Doctor and the said No.5(five) teeth was to be removed and then only she got relief from her pain, but as per the advice of the Doctor Anup Kumar Satpathy a bridge on the teeth No.4 (four), 5(five), and 6(six) is to be done because of the broken teeth No.5(five), which requires Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only but as it was a huge amount for the Complainant she has not yet been able to do the same.
In view of the aforesaid reason of treatment of the Opposite Party No.1(one) in a careless and negligent manner the Complainant had to undergo with unbearable pain with her teeth for a long time and also has to bear with huge amount of financial loss and mental agony, for which both the Opposite Party No.1(one) & No.2(two) are jointly and severally liable as such on Dt.27.05.2018 she proceeded to the hospital of the Opposite Parties and conveyed them about the facts of her sufferings and loss caused on her by them and requested them to compensate her with an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only to which both of them agreed but even after several visit to them, she was not given a single pie rather on Dt.28.07.2018 they bluntly denied to give her a single pie. Thus claiming the action of the Opposite Parties as deficiencies of service on her has preferred to file the case before the forum claiming Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards the negligence caused to her during the treatment and further amounting Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards her mental, physical and financial harassment.
Perused the Complaint petition, it’s accompanied Documents and on hearing her counsel, the case was admitted and Notice was served on the Opposite Parties for their appearance and version from end, and accordingly both the Opposite Parties appeared through their Advocate but for a long time they did not file their version for which they were set ex-parte but later on at the time of ex-parte hearing they filed a petition to set aside the order and allow them to file their version then also their petition was allowed by the Honorable Forum with a condition to file their version with a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only but they did not turn up and consequent upon which the case was taken up for hearing in their absence.
During the course of hearing the Complainant case was taken to be true in view of the negligent manner of the Opposite Parties because of the facts that they were given ample opportunities to put fourth their case if anything was there but they did not bother to obey the order of the Forum which made us compel to believe the case of the Complainant, furthermore having gone through the Complaint petition and the materials placed by the Complainant before the Forum, it is apparent from there that the Opposite Party No.1(one) has tried to deal with the case of the Complainant in a very negligent manner because it reveals from the material that all the time she has tried to adopt some new treatment as if it was a case of trial and error method without feeling the actual pain undergoing by the Complainant and the seriousness required thereto, which facts came to the light after the case was taken to the care of the subsequent Dr. Anup Kumar Satpathy who could excavate the real problem with the case of the Complainant and took the required steps of his treatment as a result of which the Complainant got the relief immediately furthermore he has opined the treatment of the Opposite Party No.1(one) was not properly done and the said upper side in her teeth No.6(six) was not at all done, which was taken to be true because of the fact that the Opposite Parties were informed about the same by the Complainant while she had been to her to claim her compensation and to which they had admitted and had assured her to compensate, but subsequently did neither bother to keep their word nor even bother to attend the Forum with any denial pleas so in our view had there been any truth against the allegation of the Complainant was there with them then they could have come and replied but even if sufficient opportunity was given they did not turn up which made us compel to belief the claim of the Complainant as true .and in our view the case of the Complainant is taken to be true beyond any reasonable doubt and the Opposite Parties are found to be negligent in rendering proper service to the Complainant for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable, hence our order follows.
O R D E R.
The Opposite Parties being jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only with interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum to the Complainant from the date of filing of this case till date of this Order and also are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards her litigation expenses within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the order in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 12 %(twelve percent) per annum till the actual realization of the total amount .
Furthermore the Opposite Parties are cautioned not to repeat the same practice in future with anybody else .
Accordingly the Complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties, and the same being pronounced in the open Forum is disposed off to-day i.e. on Dt.11/03/2020.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree,
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (W).
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh
