MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.    This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 4.1.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-l, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 1010 of 2009 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.    Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that on 13.3.2009, the complainant visited the OP No.1 Clinic for treatment of her sons and asked OP No.2 doctor to check her teeth. Thereafter, he took X-ray and said that she needed 7 fillings. It was stated that on 24.3.2009, the OP instead of filling her teeth, extracted her two wisdom teeth, on the left side, whereas, only one was required to be extracted. It was stated that on 21.4.2009, the OP did root canal treatment of 5^th tooth of left side and on 2.5.2009, the OP cut down her two teeth of left side for

making bridge, without her consent. It was further stated that on 2.5.2009, the

OP created a crown on the right side upon the tooth of the complainant, which

was already filled up. The bridge was fixed by the OP comprising metal,

whereas, it ought to have been of metal free zirconium quality, which was giving

her severe pain and headache after 15 days, and, therefore, she asked the OP to

remove the bridge, as it was not suitable. It was further stated that due to the act

and conduct of OP No.2 doctor, caused serious damage, to all the teeth of the

left side of the complainant. It was further stated that she suffered from pain,

sensitivity, and headache and was unable to chew anything from the left side of

her mouth. It was further stated that the OP had charged Rs.7750/- from the

complainant for the aforementioned jobs, which he did absolutely in a wrong

manner. Apart from this, he charged Rs.6,000/- also but its bill was not issued to

the complainant. It was further stated that the abovesaid acts of the OPs,

amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice.

Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.    Reply was filed by the OPs, wherein, it was admitted that the complainant

took dental treatment from them, and stated that filling was done on 17.3.2009

itself and extraction of one wisdom tooth and one supernumerary small tooth was

done on 24.3.2009 and both the teeth on upper left side were indicated for

extraction. The patient was told about it clearly before the extractions were done.

It was denied that the cutting down of two teeth on left side for making bridge

was without the consent of the complainant or that the bridge affixed ought to

have been of metal free zirconium. The receipt of Rs.7750/- and Rs.6,000/- from

the complainant was admitted. It was stated that on humanitarian grounds and,

out of sympathy, the Ops returned Rs.3500/- to the complainant. The

complainant again came on 15.7.2009 and asked for Rs.2500/- more from the

OPs but they refused to pay the same. It was further stated that the cost paid to

the laboratory was Rs.3,000/- and OP No.2 returned Rs.3500/- (Rs.500/- more

from his pocket). It was further stated that there was no problem with bridge and

the OP did not remove the PFM bridge. It was denied that the damage was

caused to the entire left side teeth of the complainant or she was suffering from

pain, sensitivity, headache and was unable to chew anything from the left side.

All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied.

It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the

OPs nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.    The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.    The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner,

referred to, in the opening para of the order.

6.    Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the

appellant/complainant, has filed the instant appeal.

7.    We have heard Smt.Rajwinder Kaur, appellant in person, Sh.Amit Rajan,

Advocate for the respondents alongwith Dr.Gurvinder Singh, respondent No.2, in

person, have perused the record, carefully and have also gone through the

written arguments, placed on record by both the parties.

8.    The appellant/complainant has contended that the respondent/OP No.2

doctor has tempered with the entries in the register, which is clearly evident from

Annexures 11,12, 13 and 44 of the register. It was further contended that no

crown was fixed on 27.3.2011 and the cutting of the teeth for the crown on right

side and bridge on left side were done on the same day i.e. 2.5.2009. The

appellant was forced to accept the bridge since the teeth were already cut down

by the doctor. It was further contended that as per the bill of Sodhi Dental Lab,

the crown and bridge work was done simultaneously. No temporary bridge was

provided by the dentist due to which, the two adjacent teeth were also infected

due to sensitivity and were also filled by the same dentist and he charged

Rs.400/- each. It was further contended that when the OP was asked to remove

the bridge by her husband, the dentist asked for an additional Rs.30,000/- for a

ceramic zirconia bridge. It was further contended that the appellant has already

paid Rs.12,000/- for a metal free caps on the damaged teeth to Dhody Dental

Clinic and also Rs.5,000/- to PGI for a single cap on the right side. It was further

contended that due to the negligence of the OP doctor, the complainant has

suffered an irreparable loss and damage to her teeth.

9.    The learned Counsel for the respondents/Ops has contended that the

doctor neither tempered with the document (Annexure R-1) nor inserted any

entries, thereafter, as the same also carry the name of other patients, as well as

the entries with regard to the treatment given to the sons of the appellant on

13.3.2009. It was also mentioned in the register that the appellant was suffering

from pain on 13.3.2009 itself. Thus, it cannot be said that the OP doctor

tempered with the entries in the register. It was further contended that the OP

doctor on humanitarian grounds refunded the amount of Rs.3500/- to the

complainant. She again came on 15.7.2009 and asked for Rs.2500/- more from

the OP but the OP did not pay the same to the complainant. It was further

contended that the cost paid to the laboratory was Rs.3000/- and the OP No.2

returned Rs.3500/- i.e. Rs.500/- more from his pocket, as there was no problem

with bridge and the OP did not remove the PFM bridge. It was further contended

that the seven fillings were done on 17.3.2009 itself and extraction of one

wisdom tooth and one supernumerary small tooth was done on 24.3.2009. It was

further contended that the complainant made a deliberate attempt to mislead this

Commission. Both the teeth on upper left side were indicated for extraction and

the patient was told about it clearly before the extractions were done. It was

further contended that the complainant was apprised about all types of bridges

made of white metal, PFM facing, PFM, and their cost. Detail of the same was

also given on the backside of the prescription slip. After considering all the

factors, the appellant preferred and opted for PFM. Accordingly, three crowns

were fixed and the OPs charged Rs.6,000/- from her, she was perfectly alright

and there was no complaint of any kind. The learned Counsel for the

respondents/Ops also placed reliance on the following cases Achutrao

Haribhau Khodwa and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1996 CLT

950 (SC) (CP) ; 1996(2) SCC 634.    Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs.

Dr.Trimbak Bapu Gadbole. AIR 1969 SC 128. Consumer Unity and Trust

Vs. C.M.D. reported in 1991(1) CPJ SC,  B. Anthony Raj & Anr. Vs.

Sh.Thomas Hospital & Anr. First Appeal No.245 of 1997, decided on

16.12.2005, reported as 2006(2) CPC 223. Dr.Jacob Mathew Vs. State of

Punjab 2005(2) CPC 515 SC ; 2005(5) SCC 208 and the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Dr.Biswas Nath Das Vs. Bijoy

Sinha Roy and Ors reported in 2008 CTJ 737 (CP),   Martin F.Desuja Vs.

Mohd. Ishfaq 2009 CPJ 32 SC. It was further contended that the OP became

the victim of false accusations leveled by the complainant as observed by the

team of experts of PGIMER, Chandigarh. It was further submitted that, thus, the

appeal was required to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

10.   The grouse of the appellant/complainant is that on 2.5.2009, OP No.2, cut

down her two teeth of side for making bridge, without her consent, and that the

crown fixed by him comprised metal, whereas, it should have been metal free. It

is further the grouse of the complainant that the procedure adopted by OP No.2,

caused her headache, sensitivity and severe pain. It is evident from the record

that consent was obtained from the complainant before the aforesaid procedure

was adopted. OP No.2 had rightly extracted two teeth on the upper left side (one

wisdom tooth and one supernumerary small tooth) which were clearly indicated

from the X-ray. It was also confirmed from the Report of the Experts of the Dental

Department, PGIMER, Chandigarh (which was Marked as A), that the extraction

for such teeth is routinely done and cutting down of two teeth for making a bridge

is a standard practice. The option of making a bridge or other treatment

modalities and using a particular material is a decision between the patient and

the treating doctor depending upon many factors. The expert opinion, thus,

confirmed that there was no deficiency of dental treatment service provided by

the Dental Care Clinic to Mrs.Rajwinder Kaur, as per records till 24.3.2009.

Hence, it is established beyond any doubt that there was no deficiency, in service

on the part of OPs.

11.   In this situation, we are of the considered opinion that OP No.2 was not

guilty of medical negligence, as he performed his duties and rightly exercised the

ordinary degree of professional skills and competence. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case titled as Martin F.D.' Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009)

CPJ 32 (SO . as under-

"41. A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent

simply because things went wrong from mischance or

misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one

reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He

would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the

standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

For instance, he would be liable if he leaves a surgical gauze

inside the patient after an operation vide Achutrao Haribhau

Khodwa & Ors. Vs. State of Maharasthra & Others, AIR 1996

SC 2377, or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he

would be also criminally liable if he operates on someone for

removing an organ for illegitimate trade. "

12.   Furthermore, the allegations levelled by the appellant/complainant

regarding tampering with the record, are also baseless, because at the time of

arguments, OP No.2, who was present in person, produced the relevant record

(Annexure R/1), in original, and the same was perused by us and it was found

that there was no tampering with the original record.

13.       With these facts and circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that neither there was any deficiency in service on the part of OPs nor there was tampering with the original record. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, as devoid of merit and uphold the order passed by the Learned District Forum.

14.       The parties are left to bear their own costs.

15.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.