BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 365 of 2017

Date of Institution: 05.06.2017

Date of Decision: 28.11.2017 

Ashok Kumar son of Shri Chaman Lal, resident of E.4.73 Bhalla Street Chheharta, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

Bhanot Dental Care, Opposite Petrol Pump, Near Arora Palace, G.T.Road, Chheharta, Amritsar through its proprietor Dr.Ankur Bhanot.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the  Complainant:  In person.     

              For the Opposite Party: Sh.S.S.Jammu, Advocate.           

Coram

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

Ms.Rachna Arora, Member.   

Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he had got four teeth of front of his mouth replaced from Opposite Party  and paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- to him, but the said teeth are not working properly and creating trouble at the time of eating the food etc. The complainant approached the Opposite Party  many a times and requested him to remove the defect and otherwise to return the money paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party  did not pay any heed to the genuine and legitimate request of the complainant and thus causing financial loss to the complainant. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Party  in not providing any service to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party  be directed to remove the defects or to pay the amount of Rs.8,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date when the complainant got the teeth replaced from the Opposite Party.

b)      To give direction to the Opposite Party  to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5000/- on account of causing mental and physical harassment and agony to the complainant.

c)       To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-

d)      The complainant may be granted any other relief to which he is found entitled to under law and equity.    

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The facts of the case are that the Opposite Party  has placed anterior teeth crown  w.r.t at patient’s demand as they were not looking good. It was just the cap on the teeth and these teeth are just meant for aesthetics and phonetics and not for tearing. The Opposite Party  has charged a genuine fee of Rs.8000/- which  includes consultation charges. It is denied that said cap coated teeth were not working  property and creating trouble at the time of eath food etc. as the complainant never visited the clinic of the Opposite Party  regarding any complaint in this regard after getting treatment on 19.5.2017. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copy of bill Ex.C2  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Dr.Ankur Bhanot Ex.OP1  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the  complainant as well as  ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and contended that he had got four teeth of front of his mouth replaced from Opposite Party  and paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- to him, but the said teeth are not working properly and creating trouble at the time of eating the food etc. The complainant approached the Opposite Party  many a times and requested him to remove the defect and otherwise to return the money paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party  did not pay any heed to the genuine and legitimate request of the complainant and thus causing financial loss to the complainant. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Party  in not providing any service to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. To support his version, the complainant has produced on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 as well as bill Ex.C2 duly issued by Opposite Party.   

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the facts of the case are that the Opposite Party  has placed anterior teeth crown  w.r.t at patient’s demand as they were not looking good. It was just the cap on the teeth and these teeth are just meant for aesthetics and phonetics and not for tearing. The Opposite Party  has charged a genuine fee of Rs.8000/- which  includes consultation charges. It is denied that said cap coated teeth were not working  properly and creating trouble at the time of eating the food etc. as the complainant never visited the clinic of the Opposite Party  regarding any complaint in this regard after getting treatment on 19.5.2017 and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. It is not the denial of the case that the complainant visited the clinic of Opposite Party  Doctor and got affixed the caps on the four teeth and in this regard, the Opposite Party  had admittedly charged the fee of said work including the consultation fee amounting to Rs.8000/-. The defence of the Opposite Party  is that it was just the cap on the teeth and these teeth are just meant for aesthetics and phonetics and not for tearing. The Opposite Party  has charged a genuine fee of Rs.8000/- which  includes consultation charges. It is denied that said cap coated teeth were not working  properly and creating trouble at the time of eat food etc. as the complainant never visited the clinic of the Opposite Party  regarding any complaint in this regard after getting treatment on 19.5.2017. But record shows that the treatment was given by Opposite Party  to the complainant on 19.5.2017 and in a very short time, the problem to the teeth of the complainant should not be arisen. The complainant has contended that he visited time and again to the clinic of the Opposite Party  to remove the defect in the affixed caps of teeth, but the Opposite Party  refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant. On the other hand, the contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  is that the complainant never visited the  clinic of Opposite Party  Doctor after 19.5.2017. In such a situation, we direct the Opposite Party  to remove the defect in the teeth of the complainant to the satisfaction of the complainant, free of cost. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party  within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 28.11.2017.                                     (Rachna Arora)       (Anoop Sharma)

                                                          Member             Presiding Member