Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/191/2014

Ms Ankita Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dheer Dental Clinic - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar,Adv

17 Jan 2017

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	191 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	11.04.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	17.01.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Miss Ankita Khanna d/o Late Sh.K.L.Khanna, R/o H.No.D-42, 2^nd Floor, Havz Khas, New Delhi now presently at Kothi No.192-A, Sector 4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula

 

             …………..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Dheer Dental Clinic, SCO No.358, First Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

2]  Dr.Dhavneet Singh Dheer, Dental Surgeon & Consultant, Dheer Dental Clinic, SCO No.358, First Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

…………… Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

                                MRS. PRITI MALHOTRA       MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH          MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.R.K.Bashamboo, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Neeraj Sobti, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

                   The facts in issue are that when the complainant was 17 years of age, she as well as her parents observed that her front teeth are little recessed and they as such visited PGI, Chandigarh on 12.11.2010, wherein a Comprehensive Fixed Appliance Therapy was advised.  Then complainant visited Gupta’s Dental Clinic, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh on 25.11.2010 who also advised conservative treatment of braces and put braces on the upper teeth without wires. The complainant allegedly developed in her mouth a painful ulcer and resultantly for further treatment the complainant along with her parents visited Opposite Party NO.2, who prescribed some ointment to facilitate relief from ulcers. The OP NO.2 explained the complainant and her parents that the treatment method of braces will take long time and prescribed Snap-On teeth treatment as a corrective measure for haphazard growth of teeth and told that it will be completely non-invasive. Allegedly, the Opposite Party NO.2 without the consent of complainant or her parents removed the braces being not required and charged Rs.1000/- on 1.4.2011. On 22.5.2011 the complainant visited the clinic of Opposite Party NO.2 alongwith her mother where the OP No.2 fixed some plastic caps on her teeth in the exact shape of her original teeth and charged Rs.3000/-. Then the complainant and her parents went to OPs on 26.5.2011 for snap-on treatment, but her teeth were grinded drastically causing unbearable pain and bleeding. It is averred that infact it was discovered that on 22.5.2011 the OP No.2 doctor after injecting anesthesia in her gums had grinded the complainant’s teeth so drastically that they were reduced to half of their original size, grinded upto pulpal exposure (Nerve Exposure).  It was also found that instead of treating only two front upper teeth on which he was to just paste something, the OP No.2 had grinded six of her front teeth (Ann.C-7).  That the procedure was followed without the consent of the parents of the complainant. It is also stated that Opposite Party NO.2 doctor kept on trying for about two hours to fit the crowns on her excessive grounded teeth and when he failed to fit the crowns, he told the parents of the complainant that he will get them replaced/corrected, but demanded Rs.40,000/- otherwise he will not cover her teeth even with the plastic caps, on which the parents of the complainant had to make the payment of Rs.40,000/- through cheque. Only after the payment, the Opposite Party No.2 put plastic crowns on her grinded teeth and told her to come after 3/4 days. Thereafter, the complainant kept on visiting the Opposite Party Clinic but the doctor never arranged the new crowns of correct size/shapes and each time the complainant was sent back wearing the plastic caps only.  It is submitted that the complainant was taken to various other dentists who expressed their shock and stated that the treatment of putting crowns after grinding exclusively teeth is done only in extreme and rare cases where the teeth are extensively decayed (by age) or damaged (as in an accident) or the teeth could not be saved/treated by any other means and it was opined that by doing this to 17 years old girl, whose teeth were healthy and without taking her consent, the Opposite Party Doctor has made the complainant a life-long patient only on account of his greed for money. It is also pleaded that the complainant had to go through regular pain and every six months she has to get her temporary acrylic crowns changes as they get chipped and discoloured and food seep through them, thus infecting the gums causing gingivitis and horrible pain.  It is asserted that the caps made by Dr.Dheer/OP No.2 were not correctly fitted on the upper portion of her grinded teeth and teeth remain always expose to air, making them extremely sensitive. The complainant thereafter again took treatment from PGI, Chandigarh from 2.7.2011 to 15.7.2011.  It is also asserted that the complainant later on 31.3.2012 visited K.G.Dental Care & Ortho Dontic Centre, Ambala Cantt. and doctor there also opined that the procedure adopted by OP NO.2 is not at all recommended procedure and the complainant has to visit dentist throughout her life for one or the other problem (Ann.C-10 & C-11).

         Alleging gross medical negligence on the part of OPs causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss, this complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.40,000/- with interest alongwith compensatory cost as a measure of deterrent punishment.  

 

2]       The OPs have filed reply stating that father of the complainant late Sh.K.L.Khanna and her brother namely Mr.Gaurav Khanna were regular patients/customers of the OPs for the last about 7/8 years i.e. w.e.f. 2003 onwards and both of them got the crowns installed in their upper six teeth from the OPs being victim of “Crooked/Crowded Teeth” and were fully satisfied from the treatment by OPs. It is also stated that in fact the disease of “Crooked/Crowded Teeth” of the complainant was genetic and on 01.04.2011, the complainant was brought to OPs for removal of braces already installed on her teeth by M/s Gupta Dental Hospital, as the complainant felt discomfort and not satisfied from the said treatment which caused her mouth ulcers.  It is further stated that the complainant was explained that her age warranted orthodontic treatment which was best for her but the complainant was adamant not to continue with the said orthodontic treatment and insisted for a quick fix solution rather than lengthy treatment through braces. The OPs were requested to install crowns as was installed over teeth of her father and brother earlier by OPs. Accordingly, the braces were removed and medication was given for ulcers and a sum of Rs.1000/- was charged towards consultation and removal of braces.  It is submitted that on 6.4.2011 the complainant was called for review of old ulcers and the wax Mock up was shown to the complainant and her family and the OPs explained them that there were two options of treatment i.e. (a) she could get only the two front upper teeth reshaped by crowns to give her partial improvement in aesthetics; (b) the complainant could get upper 6 teeth reshaped to get a good symmetrical appearance with her smile perfect from canine to canine. On 21.5.2011, the complainant came without appointment and opted for the second option i.e. the option of six upper front teeth crowning and since, it is a long procedure, so the complainant was called on the next day for grinding/cutting procedure and was also told that it would cost her Rs.11,000/- per tooth, which would sum up  to Rs.66,000/- for the complete treatment, to which they agreed.  It is submitted that on 22.5.2011 the crown cutting were given to the tooth NO.13,12,11,21,22,23 (3,2,1/1,2,3) and temporary crowns were installed and a sum of Rs.3000/- was charged from the complainant towards temporary crowns.  It is also submitted that on 26.5.2011 all ceramic crowns were perfect in look and were fitted to the complainant teeth but the complainant wanted some changes in shape and corners of these crowns.  The complainant was called on 2.6.2011 and the permanent original crowns were temporarily fixed at the request of the complainant as she wanted to show them to her friends and family before getting them fixed permanently and just to keep a record of her appearance as is done in all cases, the Photographs were taken before and after the whole procedure (Ann.R-5 Colly.) which show her comfortably smiling.  Sh.K.L.Khanna, the father of the complainant was happy and extremely satisfied with the treatment. However, thereafter the complainant never returned to get the original all ceramic crowns fixed permanently and hence leaving the treatment in halfway and also without making the balance payment of Rs.26,000/- for the treatment. It is pleaded that the treatment of the complainant was done by the OPs in a most diligent and prudent manner with due care and caution, and there was no negligence on the part of OPs. It is also stated that the teeth of the complainant were grinded as per requirement and the same were grinded perfectly and without any negligence/defect nor the complainant ever complained the Opposite Parties regarding any pain in her teeth till she remained under treatment upto 2.6.2011 with the OPs. The complainant did not allow the OPs for permanent fixture of the permanent crowns and left with incomplete treatment from the OPs, the resultant, complaint of service-colourance and seeping of food in the temporary fixed crowns and gingivitis due to lack of oral hygiene is a normal sign.  It is submitted that the complainant did not get the complete treatment from the OPs for the reasons best known to her and thereafter, approached different dentists. It is further submitted that the report/observation dated 31.3.2012 is contradictory and misconceived on the face of it though the entire report/observation is not related to the Opposite Parties in any manner whatsoever, as the complainant took treatment from different dentists subsequently. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying any negligence, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint being frivolous.

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The complainant has stated that the OP NO.2/Dr.Dhavneet Singh Dheer, ignoring the recommended orthodontic treatment by PGI, Chandigarh and subsequent Comprehensive Fixed Appliance Therapy started by Gupta’s Dental Clinic, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh, has proposed Snap-On Teeth Treatment, by fixing of permanent aesthetic ceramic crowns and mislead the complainant and started treatment even without the consent of the complainant or her parents.  The contention raised by the complainant seems absurd and untenable.

 

         Admittedly, the complainant has visited Deer Dental Clinic and voluntarily opted for ceramic crown treatment, relying upon successful alike treatment earlier taken by her father as well as her brother from OP No.2.  The complainant allegedly was of 17 years of age at the time of treatment from OP No.2 and had visited Dheer Dental Clinic/OP No.1 on several occasions for treatment accompanied by her parents.  It looks illogical to say that the doctor/OP No.2 himself has started treatment of the complainant without the consent of the complainant and her parents.

 

         The consent can be inferred from consistent visits and submission of complainant for the treatment of her teeth from OPs.  The accusations against doctor/OP NO.2 on account of any differences, which might have cropped-up for any reasons, best known to the complainant and her family, cannot be accepted, as true.

 

7]       The contentions raised by the complainant regarding over grinding of her teeth, causing her irreparable damage or pain, is not substantiated by any cogent expert medical evidence.  The doctor seems to have performed his duties in treatment of teeth of the complainant to the best of his professional knowledge and wisdom.  There is no iota of evidence on record to prove any negligence or lack of due care & caution in the treatment given by OP NO.2 to the complainant. A little pain or suffering, if any, faced by the complainant during her restorative treatment of her crowded teeth, seems to be incidental to the treatment in setting her teeth in order and the same is not suffice to condemn the medical service provided by the OPs.

 

8]       From the perusal of facts on record, it is explicit that the complainant tested and went to various dental surgeons/clinics i.e. PGI, Chandigarh, Gupta’s Dental Clinic and K.G.Dental Care & Orthodontic Centre, Ambala, besides various other doctors before and after treatment by OPs. Instead of following to a particular treatment at one medical institute, the complainant along with her parents kept on changing the medical treatment, which led to this blame game.  The opinion dated 31.3.2012 given by Dr.K.G.Gupta of K.G.Dental Care & Orthodontic Centre, Ambala (Ann.C-11), on the face of it appears to be motivated and manipulated too and cannot be relied upon to condemn the treatment given by the OPs. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1969 SC 128 – Dr.Laxman Balkrishana vs Dr.Trimbak, the doctor is not liable for negligence because of someone else of better skill or knowledge would have prescribed a different treatment or operated in a different way.   

         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kusum Sharma & others Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & other 2010(2)CLT 282 held:-

‘Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability with due care and caution’

 

                   The Hon’ble National Commission in case of Manteswar vs. Dr. Sumit Banerjee & anr. and Megha Eye Centre 2016(3) Law Herald (SC) 2296 held as under:-

“ No cure is not a negligence- The doctor should not be punished for, if anything goes wrong- It is a matter of common knowledge that after happening of some unfortunate event, there is a marked tendency to look for a human factor to blame for an untoward event, a tendency which is closely linked with the desire to punish- Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be found to answer for it- A professional deserves total protection.”  

         The duties performed by doctors are sacrosanct and as such cannot be condemned on trivial issues at the altar of false egos.

9]       Keeping into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, no deficiency or negligence on the part of the OPs No.1&2 can be attributed which may warrant any penal action against the OPs. The complaint as such is dismissed with no order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th January, 2017                                                                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER