JUDGEMENT<br /> By Sri. Pampapathi President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant M. Srinivas against the Opposite Nos-1 & 2 U/sec 12 of Consumer Protection for to direct the opposites to return the amount spent by him for his treatment, and compensation amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- for their deficiency in their services with cost and other relief’s as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, he got treated in the Dental College of opposite No-1 by doctor opposite No-2 for missing Lower Central Incisor 41 bearing his case sheet No. 11946. In the course of treatment implant was placed in the place of missing tooth, but pain and mobility developed in the adjacent to the tooth No.42, because of negligence in conducting surgery for implanting placement by opposite No-2. He has not advised for proper follow up treatment, he also not properly treated him for the pain and mobility. in spite of requests made several time to him, contrary he vaguely responded by saying that, he can lodge a complaint with any person for which he don’t care. In the said circumstances he got issued legal notices and thereafter, he filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in it.<br /> <br /> 3. Opposite No 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version by contending that, after basic treatment pertaining to case sheet No. 11946, case history paper given to complainant to submit for registration, but he not submitted in registration counter, thereafter complainant came to hospital after (15) days he was asked to get case sheet No. 11946 but not brought the same, hospital authorities made new case sheet No. 3429 for further treatment on 28-05-08, thereafter he was implanted incisor No. 41 advised follow up treatment, but complainant never returned for further follow up treatment, pain occurred due to his negligence. Other allegations made by the complainant have been denied. Adjacent tooth No.42 was already in mobility before treatment and replacement, it was intimated to the complainant, he never turned up and complained of anything as contended. It was due to his negligence and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.<br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the facts and circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he took treatment for missing of Lower Central Incisor 41 in the Dental College of opposite No-1 by doctor of opposite No-2 by paying an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as a treatment charge and Rs. 1,000/- as a charge for implant surgery but both have not issued receipts for having receipt of the said amount inspite of his demand, they have not given treatment after surgery and not advised follow up treatment and thereby totally they have neglected for which pain and mobility, developed in tooth No. 42, thereafter they have not properly responded and thereby both opposite found guilty under deficiency in their services towards him.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in her complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In the affirmative <br /> <br /> (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1 :-<br /> <br /> 6. This complaint was filed on 12-01-09. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with certain directions in case of medical negligence against doctor came on 17-02-09 in Martin F. D’Souza V/s.Mohd. Isfaq. Subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in CTJ 2009 1023 (CP) (SCRDC) Virak Hospital & Others V/s. Parminder Kaur & Others in which it was observed that, the judgment in Martin.F. D’souz Case is not applicable to the cases of pending before the Forum, in that circumstances our predecessor might not have referred this complaint for to get expert opinion.<br /> <br /> 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, he was noted as RW-1. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-1 was filed, he was noted as RW-2. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 are marked. Opposite No-1 filed interrogatories to PW-1 with certain material questions to PW-1, but PW-1 not filed answers to it. <br /> <br /> 8. As regards to the case of opposite No-2 is concerned, it is undisputed fact that, complainant got treatment in opposite No-1’s college by the doctor opposite No-2 for missing of incisor tooth No. 41 and implanting.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further undisputed fact that, at that time his case sheet was bearing No. 11946 vide document Ex.P-1.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainant made some of the following allegations against opposite Nos. 1 & 2 with regard to negligence in treating the missing of incisor tooth No. 41 and implanting.<br /> <br /> 11. The first allegation of him against opposite No-2 is that, they have collected an amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the treatment and also collected Rs. 1,000/- charges towards implant, but they have not issued receipts inspite of his demand. In support of the said allegations made against opposites. He filed notice copies Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 with acknowledgements shows that, he requested the opposites to issue receipts for having charges paid by him with regard to treatment of the case sheet No. 11946. Legal notice Ex.P-8 also discloses the same. Ex.P-14 filed by complainant is a receipt with regard payment of Rs. 1,000/- on 28-05-08. Ex.R-1 computer copy produced by opposite No-2 shows the payment of Rs. 3,432/-.<br /> <br /> 12. In the said circumstances, the complainant is demanded receipts regarding the payment of treatment charges vide Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 and Ex.p-8 opposite No. 1 & 2 not issued another copy of Ex.R-1 to the complainant. Ex.P-14 is only one receipt for having paid Rs. 1,000/-. There are no proper explanations out coming from the side of the opposites as to why the copy of Ex.R-1 was not issued to complainant, even after several demands. In view of the said circumstances, non issuance of receipts for having received treatment charges with regard to Rs. 3,432/- or for any amount paid by the complainant is nothing but deficiency in their services towards their customer complainant. In this regard we have followed the principles of the ruling reported in II 1991 CPJ 604 Motibai Dalvai Hospital V/s. M.I. Gouri Shanker.<br /> <br /> 13. The second allegations made against the complainant is that, due to non proper implant in place of missing incisor tooth No. 41 injury, developed with pain and mobility in the adjacent tooth No. 42. The complainant filed ‘case registration form’ of Dental Clinic Narayana Hrudayala Bangalore, wherein he got further treatment. In the said report the complaint of complainant was diagnosed and noticed that, implant tooth No. 41 is in contact with root surface of 42 that means, tooth No. 41 was not properly implanted as the implanted tooth was came in contact with 42 and thereby pain and mobility, developed in 42. The contention of the opposite No.2 is that, there was earlier pain and mobility in 42 and thereby there was no negligence on his part, in implanting 41, this is not correct, because case sheet Ex.R-2 filed by opposites bearing No. 3429 cannot be a subsequent case paper built up by the opposites for missing of earlier case paper bearing case paper No. 11496 for the simple reason that, there is no mentioning of missing of case sheet bearing No. 11496 in Ex.R-2 and preparing of Ex.R-2 new case sheet was for the purpose of missing of case No. 11946. Hence this case history paper Ex.R-2 is not taken into consideration and hold that, complainant has proved the negligence of opposite No-2 in implanting tooth No. 41 and thereby, it came in contact with tooth No. 42 and it developed pain and mobility due to wrong implanting by opposite No.2<br /> <br /> 14. As regards to the third allegations is concerned, opposite No-2 not given proper advise regarding follow up treatment after surgery and answering by opposite No.2 in his own fashion as complainant may lodge complaint with any person for which he did not care for it and creation of case paper Ex.P-2 with case paper Ex.P-7 clearly shows the negligence of opposite No-2 in implanting 41, thereafter it is a fact that, none of these opposites have taken care to rectify the defects, even after developing pain and mobility, in tooth No. 42. unusual approach with a patient by the opposite No.2 is nothing but willful negligence on his part. In the light of the above said circumstances, we have appreciated the entire pleadings, evidences and documentary evidences of the parties and are to opinion that, this case is squarely false under the case of negligence as discussed by their lordships in the following rulings:<br /> (1) Dr. Basujit Gangopadhya V/s. Ajayendunath 2010 CTJ 149 (CP) (NCDRC).<br /> (2) Jacob Mathews V/s. State of Punjab 2005 CCC 370 (NS) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and (3) Martin.F. D’Souza case 2009 CCC 22 (NS), (which is also referred by opposite No-1) as such we are of the view that, all the above material are sufficient for us to hold that, complainant has proved negligence of opposite No. 1 & 2, other contention raised in the written arguments have no merits accordingly there are rejected, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> <br /> 15. The complainant is claiming that, he has paid Rs. 5,000/- as a cost of implant and he paid an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as a fee for implantation surgery for which opposites have not issued receipts.<br /> <br /> 16. In para- 10 he is claiming that, he met total cost of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenditure, conveyance and other incidental charges.<br /> <br /> 17. As regards to expenses met out by him for conveyance and other medical charges, there are no bills. However opposites have filed a bill Ex.R-1 which is to the extent of Rs. 3,432/- as cost of integrated surface of one piece of implant, there after they might have charged for implanting it. Keeping in view of the above document Ex.R-1, complainant is entitled for to recover Rs. 5,000+ 1000= 6000/- from the opposites 1 & 2 as the cost and charge of the implant. <br /> <br /> 18. As already stated above complainant has no bills for recovery of other claims of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence other claims of him are rejected. By taking into consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case of complainant and negative approach of opposite No. 1 & 2 we have granted a lumpsum compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- recoverable by complainant from the opposite No. 1 & 2.<br /> <br /> 19. We have noticed the negligence of opposite No. 1 & 2 and deficiency in their services, as such complainant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs,. 3,000/- from the opposites jointly and severally.<br /> <br /> 20. As regards to the cost of litigation is concerned, we have granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under this head and thereby complainant is entitled to recoverable from opposites 1 & 2, Rs. 22,000/- jointly and severally this point is answered Point No.2.<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 21. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.<br /> <br /> The complainant is entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 22,000/- from the opposite 1 & 2 jointly and severally.<br /> <br /> Opposite No-1& 2 is granted one month time to comply the above order from the date of this judgment for to make the payment.<br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-04-10)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />