STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                      FA 628 of 2014

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 167 of 2013, DISTICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between :

Dr. P.V. Parthasarathi,

Chief Managing Director,

C/o Partha Dental Hospital

MIG 69, 70,

Above ICICI Bank, OP : JNTU Main Gate,

Dharmareddy Colony, KPHB Colony,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072.

State of Andhra Pradesh                              ..        Appellant/1^st opposite party

And

1. Srinivasa  Appaji Chittineni,

Second Floor, H.No. 51, MIG-2

9^th Phase, KPHB Colony,

Hyderabad – 500 071, A.P.

Permanent Address :

S/o Shyam Sundar Rao Chittineni,

H.No. 9-628/5A, Perecherla ( Post)

 Medikondur Mandal, Guntur Dist – 522 009,

A.P.                                                .. Respondent/complainant

2. Dr. Vamsi, Implants.
3. Mr. Asgar, Dental Technician
4. Dr. Ramakrishna
5. Mr. Refeeq, Dental Technician

All C/o Partha Dental Hospital, MIG 69, 70, above ICICI Bank

Opp : JnTU Main Gate, Dharmareddy colony, KPHBColony

Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072, State of Andhra Pradesh

( State of Telangana )           ..                  Respondents/ops 2 to 5

( Respondents 2 to 5  are not necessary parties to this appeal)

Counsel for the Appellant                  :   M/s. B. Kavita Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents             :    Mr. G. Anand Rao for R-1

   FA 107 OF 2017

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 167 of 2013, DISTICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between :

Srinivasa  Appaji Chittineni,

Second Floor, H.No. 51, MIG-2

9^th Phase, KPHB Colony,

Hyderabad – 500 072, A.P.

Permanent Address :

S/o Shyam Sundar Rao Chittineni,

H.No. 9-628/5A, Perecherla ( Post)

 Medikondur Mandal,

Guntur Dist – 522 009, A.P.         …Appellant/complainant

And

1).      Dr. P.V. Parthasarathi,

Chief Managing Director,

C/o Partha Dental Hospital

MIG 69, 70,

Above ICICI Bank, OP : JNTU Main Gate,

Dharmareddy Colony, KPHB Colony,

Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072.

State of Andhra Pradesh

2. Dr. Vamsi Krishna Kommineni, Implants.
3. Mr. Asgar, Dental Technician
4. Dr. Ramakrishna Maddali V
5. Mr. Refeeq, Dental Technician

Above All C/o Partha Dental Hospital,

MIG 69, 70, above ICICI Bank

Opp : JNTU Main Gate,

 Dharmareddy colony,

KPHBColony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 072,

 State of Andhra Pradesh

( State of Telangana )           ..                  Respondents/OPs 2 to 5

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Wednesday, the Fourteenth Day of March

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       These are cross appeals filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the first opposite party in FA 628 of 2014 and the complainant in FA 107 of 2017  praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 13.08.2014  made in CC  167/2013  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM, Ranga Reddy.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant was induced  to go for implant surgery,  which was actually not his primary problem and   on payment of Rs.20,000/- on 04.08.2012, the second opposite party performed the surgery on 06.08.2012. The opposite parties 2 to 4 convinced him to go for implant for his missing upper lateral teeth. Even though, the complainant told them that “ an implant specialist was against this treatment  and told the complainant 10 years back that his case was a complex one”. The second opposite party instead of attending himself sent opposite party No. 3  who was only a technician who totally chopped off the lower teeth and exposed it to the pulp  despite complainant’s resistance. Despite the assurance that his teeth  would not be touched, the implant was a total disaster as it was coming in the path of lower lateral tooth and complainant could not close his mouth as his lower teeth got in the way. On his complaint, the expert committee consisting of three experts  of the A.P. State Dental Council, opined  that  there are lapses on the part of the opposite parties and Dr. K. Mahendranth Reddy, President of Council treated him for 20 days in March, 2013. He suffered 8 months with pain and agony and was unable to eat properly.  The implant is still in his mouth and needs to be removed by surgery and this was causing pain while sleeping which amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.24,501/- paid by him  for his treatment, to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for permanent loss and damage caused to him and for mental agony and costs of Rs.1000/-.

4).      Opposite party no.1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that when the complainant approached them for filling of his teeth, upon perusal of x-ray, the doctors helped him for his treatment.  It was explained to the complainant and only after his acceptance the treatment was proceeded. He was interested only in getting his missing teeth.  Even though, it was explained to him that the treatment requires multiple appointments, complaints skipped these. It was denied that most sensitive part of the tooth, i.e, the pulp was exposed by the technicians as it creates severe pain. Complainant never mentioned the treatment he had with the other doctor who treated him for 20 days. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5).      During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his  case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-22 and the on behalf of the first opposite party along with evidence affidavit, he got marked Ex. B1 to B4. Opposite parties  2 to 5 remained absent despite paper publication. Both sides filed their respective written arguments. Heard.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4  jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs.24,501/- paid by the complainant along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-  towards the loss caused to him , for the remedial treatment in future and for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towars  costs within 30 days.  The complaint was dismissed against the opposite parties 3 and 5.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the 1^st opposite party preferred appeal in FA 628 of 2014 and the complainant preferred FA 107 of 2017

8).      Heard both sides. Complainant filed common written arguments.

9)       The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No.1 :

There is no dispute that the complainant had undergone implant surgery in the opposite party hospital on payment of Rs.20,000/- on 04.08.2012 and  the second opposite party performed the surgery on 06.08.2012.  The complainant complained that the implant was a total disaster as it was coming in the path of lower lateral tooth and complainant could not close his mouth. The complainant contended  that on his complaint, the expert committee consisting of three experts  of the A.P. State Dental Council, opined  that  there are  lapses on the part of the opposite parties and Dr. K. Mahendranth Reddy, President of Council treated him for 20 days in March, 2013. He further complained that he suffered eight months due to improper surgery.

11).    The District Forum, basing on the opinion of the expert committee , held that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4, due to improper handling in giving treatment to the complainant, he not only suffered severe pain and agony  during his treatment, but, he was compelled to undergo treatment from other doctors also and in future also the complainant may require treatments for root canal and crown. Root canal treatment is extremely painful and it will impact on the complainant’s day to day regular routine work/career.

12).    We have perused the findings of the expert committee, which, found that the tooth showed pulpal exposure and the implant placed in the region of 22 was a single piece single staged implant  and had no restoration over it.  Whatever portion of the implant was there, it was reduced to a size, where the remaining abutment will not be enough for the retention of  the crown and there is also no space for the same.   It is also noted that the opposite tooth to the implant, i.e, 32 tooth has been reduced in order to achieve closure of teeth and there was pain and sensitivity in this tooth. The x-ray also showed pulp chamber close to the prepared dentine.  It was also held that though the patient’s primary complaint was different, he was motivated for replacing the missing teeth. It was seen that no preoperative records and investigation were done or maintained.   The filling found in 26 tooth was also substandard and lot of over handing was left over. The treatment plan was poor which led to improper and un-restorable implant. Tooth No. 26 may need root canal treatment and crown and most importantly it was noted that lower tooth 32 was cut leading to sensitivity and may require root canal treatment.

13).    Counsel for the appellant/first opposite party argued that the District Forum failed to see that the enquiry committee given report pertaining to the treatment was only done for Tooth no. 7 and 23 but not for tooth no. 26 and 32, as the enquiry report is only expert opinion which cannot be a conclusive opinion, the complainant did not take precautionary measures to be taken after treatment, the District Forum failed to study the case sheet, x-ray and other study material. 

14).    On the other hand, counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to contradict the finding of the expert committee and in the absence of any evidence the report of expert committee is the basis for the decision of the case.

15). Except the bald allegations the first opposite party did not take any steps to adduce any evidence contradicting the expert opinion placed by the complainant. The District Forum is not expert in technical aspects relating to the teeth. The District Forum has to bind over on the expert opinion given by the experts consisting of three members which has gone through all the material available on record when there was no contradictory expert opinion.  Hence the contention of the first opposite party that the District Forum has not studied the material is  no ground. Further, after the implant surgery the complainant suffered a lot and also he took treatment for 20 days under the guidance President of the Dental Council and as per the findings of the expert Committee. The contention of the appellant/complainant that the opposite parties 3 and 5 are also liable cannot be accepted since they are working under the control of the 1^st opposite party hospital and if they are not skilled technicians, the first opposite party is responsible for the same. No doubt, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital. However, granting of compensation of  an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is exorbitant and we are of the opinion of  reducing it  to Rs.3,00,000/- and the same  will meet the ends of justice.

16).              After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party and granting of compensation for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is exorbitant and reducing it  to Rs.3,00,000/- will meet the ends of justice while confirming refund of amount of Rs.24,501/- spent towards treatment and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

17).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal filed by the first opposite party in FA 628 of 2014 is partly allowed and  the impugned order dated 13.08.2014  in CC 167 of 2013   passed by the District Forum, Ranga Reddy is modified reducing the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- while confirming  refund of amount of Rs. Rs.24,501/- spent towards treatment and costs of Rs.10,000/-. Consequently, the appeal filed by the complainant in FA 107/2017 stands dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance  four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated : 14.03.2018.