Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/18/2018

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deep Dental Clinic - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Jaspreet Singh

28 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,      U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	18 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	11.01.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	28.03.2018

 

 

 

 

Kuldeep Singh aged 59 years, s/o Sh.Sarwan Singh, R/o H.No.440/1, Village Kajheri, Sector 52, Chandigarh.     

             …..Complainants

Versus

1]  Deep Dental Clinic through Dr.Kuldip Singh, SCO No.250, First & Second Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh.

2]  Dr.Kuldip Singh, Proprietor/Partner, Deep Dental Clinic, SCO No.250, First & Second Floor, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh. 

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Sh.Varun Bhardwaj, Adv. for the complainant.

Dr.Kuldip Singh (OP No.2), Proprietor of OP  

No.1 in person.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant was having problem in his tooth and as such visited OPs, who recommended for replacement of tooth.  It is averred that the complainant agreed with recommendation of Opposite Parties and as such paid Rs.20,000/- on 20.11.2015 (Ann.A-1).  Thereafter, Opposite Party NO.2 replaced the tooth of the complainant and issued him a warranty certificate mentioning that the tooth replacement has a 5 years warranty in case it is damaged/broken in any manner    (Ann.A-2).  It is submitted that to the shock of the complainant, one hole appeared in the tooth affixed by Opposite Party NO.2 and the complainant has to face lot of pain.  It is also submitted that when the complainant brought this fact to the notice of OPs and requested to get the same replaced being under warranty, the Opposite Party No.2 flatly refused to replace the same. It is further submitted that the complainant is still having pain as Opposite Party No.2 had used substandard product.  Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The OPs have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that seeing the opposite arch treated with already a bridge and a crown in the adjoining upper molar last tooth of the complainant, a Monolith Zirconia bridge of 3 units was planned and preparation needed for it was done.  It is stated that the warranty had Terms & Conditions written on it and is valid when the bridge is fixed and balance in the mouth.  It is also stated that the patient revealed that the bridge came out in Canada a month ago and he never visited any Dentist for refixing.  The patient was advised that there is space closure and as such it will be difficult to refix it and a new replacement is required, that required tooth shaping, but the patient refused and insisted that the bridge was ‘Kacha” of inferior quality.  It is stated that now it cannot be replaced as there was space closure and patient was not interested in any tooth cutting.  It is submitted that the warranty is for fixed and balanced bridge and not for Knockout Bridge, it is strong when fixed, but fragile when loose. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegation, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder in rebuttal to the reply of Opposite Party and reiterated the contentions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit in support of his contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the complainant, Dr.Kuldip Singh in person and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       Dr.Kuldip Singh, Proprietor of Deep Dental Clinic admittedly in his report Ann.A-6 has installed a bridge of Zirconia Monolith (3M) of Tooth Number 15, 16, 17 and also given limited warranty of 5 years.  Furthermore, a Bite Guard was also given to prevent damage to the teeth, due to attrition. 

 

7]       Dr.Kuldip Singh has stated that the bridge installed in the replacement of tooth No.15, 16, 17 of the complainant was fallen/knocked out on the following reasons:-

 

a)  Bruxism, an unconscious habit of grinding of teeth;

b)  Eating sticky food, like candies and chocolates;

         c)  None compliance of the bite guard;

d)  Premature contacts especially when opposite arch bridge in the area of canine is given.

 

He has stated that the complainant now require a new Bridge with little shaping of the molar tooth (17) for which he has to pay processing charges to him.

 

8]       The complainant has got the treatment at the cost of Rs.20,000/- from the Dr.Kuldip Singh on 20.11.2015.  The bridge fixed by Dr.Kuldip Singh admittedly had 5 years warranty, which have developed hole and fallen out from the fixture of mouth of complainant.  Notwithstanding any cause advertent or inadvertent on the part of complainant, the OP Dr.Kuldip Singh was duty bound to stand to the terms & conditions as laid down in the warranty regarding bridge used by him for the treatment of the complainant. The OP Dr.Kuldip Singh personally appeared before this Forum and argued his case refuting the contentions as raised in the complaint, however, the same were not found convincible. The OP Dr.Kuldip Singh has declined to rectify the defect or install a new bridge free of cost even though under the warranty period.  He insisted for treatment only against payment by the complainant. We find merit in the contentions raised by the complainant regarding deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties in providing him service as per terms & conditions of the warranty.

 

9]       Keeping in view the facts into consideration, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 with directions to refund an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  

 

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

Announced

28^th March, 2018                                                 

                                                                                      Sd/-  

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER