In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.

Case No. CC/18/2019.

Date of filing: 04/02/2019.                     Date of Final Order: 12/07/2024.

Sri Abhijit Sen,

s/o Sri Samareddranath Sen,

r/o 32, S.C. Mukherjee Street,

P.O. Konnagar, P.S. Uttarpara,

Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712235.                                                                   …..complainant

  -vs  -

Dr. Ayon Banerjee,

(regd no. 1862-A),

s/o Late Onkar Banerjee,

12, K.P. Banerjee Sarani,

P.O. Konnagar, P.S. Uttarpara,

Dist. Hooghly, PIN. 712235.                                                             ……opposite party

Before:            President, Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.

                          Member,  Debasis Bhattacharya.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

Presented by:-

Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay,  President.

Brief fact of this case:-  This case has been filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant stating that on 7.1.2016 the complainant went to the OP with some dental problem (weathered out enamel) in upper left 8^th (last) teeth, which was devoid of any pain.  The OP doctor had advised the complainant to take some oral medicines (antibiotics) and come after 7 days for extraction.  After paying the consultancy charges of Rs.100/- (no receipt given) to the OP the complainant returned home and followed his prescription religiously.

The complainant again went to the chamber of the OP.  He again paid Rs.300/- for extraction but this time also no receipt was issued by the OP to the complainant.  The complainant at first had administered an injection by the OP and after letting the complainant to sit for the anesthetic reaction time, called the complainant inside the chamber.  On his first attempt the doctor had broken the upper part of the teeth of the complainant and the OP was not being able to grip the teeth properly.  As a result the Op told that the teeth needs to be broken down into pieces and started all sorts of experimentation.  The OP started scolding the complainant for not coming before hand (when the teeth was in good shape & when he could have handled it properly).  The complainant became astonished and told the doctor that why he would come to doctor when there was no problem in his teeth and the same was in good shape and condition.  He only came to him when the problem arose and being a doctor he knows what to do next from his first visit.  The OP in his first visit never questioned that this type of extraction  should have been done after due x-ray blood test etc.  Never thought of taking any anti tetanus injection as the doctor has not prescribed it.  After all the OP is a master of dental surgery.  He knows the best.  But the OP never prescribed the same before extraction.  After nearly 15 to 20 minutes, the OP told the complainant that the ordeal is over.  The OP said that all believe that tooth extraction is an easy job but it will take time.  After that the Op murmured to his assistant that teeth no.7 (upper left) is creating some sort of problem and extracting was essential but that should not be done as per norms.  By that time already a huge time have elapsed.  The complainant’s veil of faithfulness had started to disappear.  The complainant asked the OP whether the extraction can be done successfully or not.  It was immediately followed by another whip of high handedness.  The OP immediately ordered the complainant to shut his mouth and put his head back.  At around 9.30 p.m in a cold night the complainant thought it will be better to give a free hand to a MDS, rather than to look out for another dentist or go to the dental college at Kolkata which is far off.  The complainant could feel in his numb mouth the efforts made for extraction of teeth no.7.  The OP suddenly told the complainant everything is over and stitched the area.  After taking Rs.300/- and prescribing the complainant a list of dos & don’ts and his assistant guided the complainant out of his room.  Thereafter the complainant returned to his house with lots of sufferings and anxiety caused in course of the extraction.

The OP never made the complainant realize that the extraction was not successful & his utmost trial in extracting the teeth has injured the area profusely.  Due to anesthesia also the complainant could not realize whether the extraction was done or not.  Nothing was mentioned in the prescription by the OP.  It was a concealed affair by the OP which was tried to hush off.  After the ordeal on 15.1.2016, the complainant was of the belief that his upper left 8^th (last teeth) has been extracted, until 21.1.2016, when it was found that even after 6 days of antibiotics and medicine, neither the pain nor the swelling in mouth shown any sign of relief.  The complainant was unable to open his mouth. As advised by his family, and as the complainant could not keep faith on the OP after the last ordeal on 15.1.2016, the complainant went to Dr. Angushuman Datta, BDS on 21.1.2016 at his chamber at Nabagram, Konnagar.  He observed the poor healing and partial trismus and doubted that the roots might have been retained.  After prescribing a course of antibiotics and other medicines he advised the complainant to come back to him after 7 days.  The complainant pain and swelling did not reduce, and left the complainant completely perplexed.  In a bid to get another opinion, as advised by his family, the complainant visited Dr. Binay Kanta Bhattacharya, BDS at his chamber on 23.1.2016.  He verbally stated to the complainant, that the injury is severe and if not treated properly there may be a chance of lack of flow of blood to the capillaries of the affected area which could entail a permanent damage.  He prescribed another course of antibiotics including 1,000 mg Amoxicillin with 62.5 mg Clavulanate twice daily and verbally told the complainant that after reduction of infected sore the roots needed to be uprooted and that too at the earliest.  As there was no progress in healing, the complainant again approached Dr. Binay Kanta Bhattacharya, BDS on 25.1.2016.  He advised the complainant a 30 degree Lat oblique x ray of the mandible and told the complainant to show him for further course of action.

The x-ray was done at ever green Health Centre on 25.1.2016.  The X-ray plate was collected by the complainant on 25.1.2016.  After being in 3 courses of antibiotics from 7.1.2016 to 25.1.2016 of various powers, the complainant started suffering from antibiotic induced diarrhea.  The OP lackadaisical attitude had put the complainant’s whole family i.e  his septuagenarian father, his mother, his wife, his daughter to immense mental pain and agony.  The complainant and his family heard about Dr. Dipto De, MDS (Cal), who had a good reputation of carrying out such surveries with ease.  On 26.1.2016, the complainant’s family and friends took the complainant to said doctor at his chamber in a hired car for treatment as his condition was deteriorating day by day.  Dr. De, prescribed medicines for 10 days for healing up the infection and for getting the complainant relief from antibiotic induced diarrhea.  He had also advised the complainant certain blood tests which the complainant carried out on 28.1.2016 from Dr. Tribedi & Roy.  On 1.2.16,  the complainant again visited Dr. De at GD Hospital & Diabetes Institute at Kolkata when he told that the patient is showing improvement and advised the complainant to review after 3 weeks after carrying out certain blood tests.  The complainant carried out the blood tests on 19.2.16 from Drs. Tribedi & Roy.  On 22.2.16, the complainant again visited Dr. De where he advised OPG of Jaws.  Since, the complainant was doing well, the complainant was further verbally advised to come after 3 months after complete cure of the wounded area to carry out the surgical extraction of the impacted left maxillary third molar tooth.   On 18.5.2016, the complainant visited Dr. De as still there was complications where he was advised X-ray chest (PA view), ECG and many other blood tests.  The complainant was also advised regarding admission to carry out the surgical extraction of the impacted left maxillary third molar tooth.

The requisite x-ray & ECG test carried out on 23.5.2016 from ever green Health Centre of Konnagar for Rs.320/- and the blood tests were carried out from Department of Pathology, Arogya Niketan (P) Ltd. Uttarpara on payment of Rs.1330/- .  On 25.5.2016 the reports stated in para 14 above were shown by the complainant to Dr. Dipto De who made necessary arrangements for admission of the complainant at GD Hospital & Diabetes Institute after healing of the wounded area.  On 27.5.2016 the complainant was admitted with inconsistent pain in left side of jaws (due to incomplete extraction by OP on 15.1.2016) in GD Hospi9tal & Diabetes Institute under Dr. Dipto De surgical extraction of the impacted left Maxillary third Molar tooth was carried out under general anesthesia.  The complainant was discharged from day care on 27.5.2016 after being advised to take medicine for another 7 days.  Lastly, after healing of the affected area the injured, half extracted teeth was completely extracted.  The complainant had to bear additional cost of Rs.27974/- in GD Hospital due to the OP lackadaisical attitude which had put the complainant whole family i.e. his septuagenarian father, his  mother his wife, his daughter to immense mental agony.

The complainant sent a letter to the OP firstly on 7.2.2016 which was duly received by the OP.  He after few days contacted the complainant physically in his resident and apologized  for the whole situation caused by him but was not responded in black and white.  After discharged from the GD Hospital and after came out from the trauma, the complainant again on 6.6.2016 stating all the deficiency caused by the OP in course of his treatment and also claim compensation to the tune of Rs.200000/- only.  This time after receipt of the letter dated 6.6.2016 of the complainant, the OP  in response to complainant’s letter dated 6.6.2016 though denied those allegations vide letters dated 19.6.2016 and 22.6.2016 but at the same time in Para 3 of the OP’s letter dated 19.6.2016 and para 6 of OP’s letter dated 22.6.2016 are bit contradictory and in Para 5 of letter dated 22.6.2016 the OP accepted his fault stated that “some retained root was there” which amongst to clear admission of deficiency in service.  In the prescription dated 15.1.2016 the OP/doctor categorically mentioned” surgical extraction of 7^th and 8^th (upper left) done.  From the prescription dated 15.1.2016 it couldn’t be ascertained that the surgical extraction of upper left 8^th was not successful or the root was retained.  It was deliberately suppressed by the OP only to get rid of his own wrong and to gain illegally with malafide intention.

In this connection it is stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by section 20 read with section 17A of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Dental Council of India with the previous sanction of the Central Government, in the suppression of the Dentists (Code of Ethics) Regulations 1976, Revised Dentists (Code of Ethics) Regulations, 2014 were formulated which came into force with effect from 27^th June 2014.

In this connection extract of regulation 4.3 and 4.4 of the Dentists )Code of Ethics) Regulations, 2014 are quoted below:-

Prognosis:- The Dental Surgeon should neither exaggerate nor minimize the gravity of a patient’s disease.  He should ensure himself that the patient, his relatives or his responsible friends have such knowledge of the patient’s condition as well serve the best interests of the patient and the family. 

A dental surgeon is free to choose whom he will serve.  He should, however respond to any request for his assistance in any emergency.  Once having undertaken a case, the dental surgeon should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving adequate notice to the patient and his family.  He shall not willfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary Dental/Medical care”.

There was no problem in teeth no.7.  Nothing was told before hand about the need of its extraction.  Most important x-ray was not advised.  After the surgery nothing was stated about the botched up surgery in his prescription which tantamount to criminal negligence.  It has been stated that extraction of upper left 7 and 8 tooth done.

The outcome of the treatment was compromised which would have jeopardize complainant’s life.  Not known whether his attendant is enlisted or not.  Minimum mindfulness was not observed, since any health professional of normal prudence would have advised for a x-ray and /or blood test.  Not only that every human being has a limitation and one should understand his own limitation.  When the OP felt that it was not within his means, he could have referred the complainant to some specialist instead of trial and error method, as if he was attempting on a guinea pig.  His trial has injured the area profusely and which was deliberately concealed to the complainant. Extraction of tooth no.7 was done without the complainant’s consent.  His approach during the surgery was discourteous, unsympathetic, and unfriendly and the way the botched up surgery was concealed was totally undignified.

After being in antibiotics from 07.01.2016 to 31.1.2016 of various powers (even 1 dentist had to advise the complainant 1,000 mg amoxicillin with 62.5 mg clavulanate twice daily for reducing infection of the injured area) due to OP’s utter medical negligence is yet to heal.  The aforesaid antibiotic had left the complainant with antibiotic induced diarrhea.  On 26.1.2016, complainant family and friends had to be taken him to Kolkata for treatment.  The mental sufferings of his family can very well be understood.  Lastly, after healing of the affected area the injured, half extracted teeth was completely extracted at a hospital in Kolkata on 27.5.2016 after carrying out full general anesthesia on him..  The complainant was again on medicine and was unable to have normal food for weeks together.

The misconducts & unethical practices are described in the complaint petition.

Having no other alternative, the complainant raised the issue to the consumer Affairs Department vide letter dated 15.7.2016.  In reply, Assistant Director, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell, Consumer affairs Department advised to file a statutory consumer complaint on the issue u/s 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 with relevant rules before this ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly vide letter dated 1.9.2016.  The complainant also preferred a complaint to the President, West Bengal Dental Council, Kolkata against the Op vide letter 20.12.2017 enclosing 21 pages which contained all relevant documents and records (except x rays and photographic records).  In reply, West Bengal Dental Council vide letter dated 29.1.2018 intimated the complainant to submit all relevant documents, x rays and photographic records available with the complainant for further process.  On submission of the requisite documents (except x-ray records), the complainant was requested to appear at the office of the Registrar West Bengal Dental Council with all relevant x-ray records on 15.5.2018 at 3.00 p.m vide letter dated 4.4.2018.  The complainant appeared with all the relevant x-ray records and on the aforesaid requested date and time in front of a Board at West Bengal Dental Council but no fruitful result yielded yet.

Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 350000/- for mental agony, harassment, pain and wrong treatment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for treatment cost alongwith doctors fee from 7.1.2016 and on wards and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost.

Defense Case:-  The opposite party contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against him and stated that the complainant came to the op on 7.1.2016 with certain dental problem and on that day the complainant came to the op mainly for his problem in 3^rd Molar Tooth (upper left 8^th) and on clinical examination his upper left 3^rd Molar was found grossly carious and as the teeth of the patient were clearly visible from outside there was no necessity for advising x-ray and so the op advised him for extraction of the said tooth but at the same time the op specifically stated him that the position of the said tooth was in such a manner that there was every possibility of extraction of the left maxillary 2^nd Molar Tooth (upper left 7^th) and the complainant verbally gave ascent to the same. As the patient had pain and inflammation in that area of those two teeth on that day i.e. on 7.1.2016 necessary antibiotics and other medicines were prescribed and he was advised to come after that course of medicines and the op had a long family relation with  complainant and because of that relation no fee was neither offered by the complainant or demanded by the op and because of such long standing family relationship this op extracted teeth of his other family members and his wife was also treated by the op and for such treatment to all of them the op did not take any fees and that he did not take because of such long standing relationship but in one occasion when the complainant had his root canal treatment in the year 2014 as such treatment involved some use of costly materials the complainant offered fees and took receipt there of  as he was entitled to reimbursement of the same amount.

On 15.1.2016 the complainant came to the op for extraction of his teeth and as earlier discussed with the complainant in the first visit on 7.1.2016 when the said 3^rd Molar tooth (upper left 8^th)  was extracted and because of the position of 2^nd Molar tooth (upper left 7^th) the same was also extracted at the time extraction of 3^rd molar teeth (upper left 8^th). The process of extraction was started at 9:15 pm. The entire procedure was done with full satisfaction of the complainant. For every extraction of tooth an injection in the area of the tooth to be extracted is given for local anesthesia and only after waiting for some time only when the local anesthesia is complete the tooth is extracted and it was exactly so done for extraction of tooth/ teeth of the complainant. The op doctor prescribed required medicines and advised him to come to him after 7 days and the patient was told that there was some residuary and the same would be extracted on the next day again on local anesthesia and thus the patient was very much in the know that there was some residuary and on 15.1.2016 and the patient became completely exhausted during the process of such extraction and as nobody was there with the patient and as it was about 10’o clock further anesthesia was not given for extraction of the residual part and he was told that in the next sitting the same would be extracted. Thus, the complainant was in the process of treatment by the op doctor.

The op doctor did not think it necessary for having prescribed for any X-ray as the teeth of the patient were clearly visible from the outside and no blood test was prescribed because no such test was necessary for that patient. Had such investigation was necessary the doctor definitely had prescribed the same. Similarly, as broad spectrum antibiotic coverage was already given there was no need for any anti tetanus injection and more particularly the OT set up of the op was so immediately clean that tetanus infection was not supposed to creep up in that set up and in fact because of such set up in the extraction and other surgical treatment of the teeth of thousands and thousands of patients the doctor did not feel necessary to advice to the patients for tetanus injection and no patient had ever been victim of any such bacterial infection (tetanus).

The patient was under local anesthesia and he had no scope to look inside the mouth and hence there was no chance of his seeing or feeling that tooth no.7 was getting extracted through he was definitely given to learn that while extracting tooth no.8 because of the position of tooth no.7 both the teeth would be extracted simultaneously.  It is however true that after the extraction of the teeth the area was stitched which was supposed to be removed on the next visit of the patient but after that day the complainant did not turn up and thus did not give any scope to the Op for completion of the treatment.  It is again denied that the assistant of the OP guided the complainant out of the room of the OP or that thereafter the complainant returned to his house with any suffering and anxiety as falsely alleged.  Though the second doctor prescribed medicines on 21.1.2016 with an advice to come to him after 7 days the patient instead of continuing with that treatment went to another doctor Dr. Binoy Kanta Bhattacharya, who is also a BDS, on 23.1.2016.   On 23.1.2016 the third doctor also did not advise for any x-ray which he advised on 25.1.2016 when the petitioner came to him on that day.  It is to be submitted that the petitioner also did not continue his treatment even after getting the x-ray done as per his advice.  The patient did not continue the treatment under the said doctor namely Dr. Binay Kanta Bhattacharya and now he went to another doctor, Dr. Dipta Dey who is MDS that is the same qualification of the OP.  On 15.1.2016 definitely the extraction of 7^th and 8^th upper left molar teeth were extracted and as during the said process residual part was there the complainant was told that the same would be extracted on the next visit and that was so arranged as the patient was exhausted, came without any person and it was about 10 p.m. in the winter night.  The OP being an MDS did not advice for any x-ray as the position of teeth were clearly visible from outside and he having the expertise did not think it necessary for advising such x-ray.  The function of the attendant of the doctor is just to register the names of the patients and to call them by term and that’s all.  The OP doctor in his chamber does all the process himself.  The patient was under the treatment of the OP from 7.1.2016 to 15.1.2016 and then as he did not turn up the OP could not complete his treatment and so it was never this doctor who had given any medicine up to 31.1.2016.  It is denied that the OP had any medical negligence in his treatment.  The OP had any fault in his treatment the West Bengal Dental council where the petitioner approached would have definitely taken action against him but it was not so done which clearly shows that the OP was never in fault and there was no deficiency /negligence on his part.  In the above premises the complaint is required to be dismissed with costs.

Issues/points for consideration

On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
2. Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
4. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

            The answering opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version and so it is needless to discuss.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite party filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.

            Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite party heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

The first three points of considerations/issues which have been framed on the ground of maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law or not, are vital issues and so these points of considerations are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.

For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of above noted points of considerations, there is urgent necessity of making scrutiny of the material of this case record.  Regarding these three points of consideration it is important to note that OP even after appearance in this case and after filing written version had not filed any petition on the ground of maintainability due to the reason best known to him.  However, the OP in his written version has pleaded the above noted points.  This District Commission after going through the pleadings of the parties finds that the complainant and OP are the residents of the District of Hooghly and so this District Commission has its territorial jurisdiction and the claim of the complainant is far below Rs.20,00000/-and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Forum/Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction.  Thus the points of jurisdiction which has been alleged by the OP is decided in favour of the complainant side.  Moreover, as per section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, this District Commission/Forum has its jurisdiction to try this case.

Over the issue of maintainability this District Commission after making scrutiny of the material of this case record finds that the complainant after medical treatment under OP also had taken the advice Dr. Angushuman Datta, B.D.S on 21.1.2016 at his Chamber Nabagram, Konnagar and thereafter had again visited the chamber of Dr. Binay Kanta Bhattacharya, B.D.S on 23.1.2016 and finally the complainant had undergone medical treatment under Dr. Dipto De, M.D.S (Calcutta).  But fact remains that all the above noted three doctors have not been impleaded as  party in this case.  In this regard, the complainant side has pointed out that there is no allegation of the negligence against Dr. Angshuman Datta, Dr. Binay Kanta Bhattacharya and Dr. Dipto De and for that reason they have not been impleaded as  party in this case.   Over this issue the case law AIR 2004 SC 5088 has been referred.  In this regard it is important to note that all the above noted three doctors are necessary parties in this case and their presence in this case was urgently required for arriving at proper and complete adjudication of this case.  But the complainant inspite of getting sufficient opportunity has not impleaded above noted three doctors as parties of this case. So it is crystal clear that this case is bad for non-joinder of parties.

Moreover, in this case the OP by filing written version has adopted the plea that the OP had not taken any fees from the complainant as the complainant and his family members are the relatives / family friends of the Op doctor.  In this regard the complainant side has adopted the plea that he has paid fees for two dates of Rs.100/- and Rs.300/- respectively.  Over this issue it is very vital to note that no money receipt showing payment of fees has been filed by the complainant.  This matter is clearly reflecting that the Op doctor has provided voluntary treatment to the complainant.  This part of the point of contention has not been contradicted by the complainant by way of placing cogent and satisfactory evidence.  When the OP doctor has provided voluntary treatment to the complainant, this District Commission is of the view that there is no relationship of consumer of service provider in between complainant and OP.  So it is crystal clear that the complainant is not consumer under section 2(1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  So this District commission is of the view that this case is not maintainable in the eye of law.

It is the settled principle of law that the term “negligence” has no defined boundaries and if any medical negligence is there, whether it is pre or post-operative medical case or any follow up case had any point of time by treating doctors or anyone else is always opened to be considered by this District Commission.  This legal principle has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Rani Akhori and others Vs. M.A. Methusethupathi (Doctor and others) and it is reported in 11(2022)CPJ51(SC).  In this regard it is important to note that the complainant went to the chamber of OP doctor on 7.1.2016 and thereafter seven days after for extraction of the affected teeth and the OP Doctor advised the complainant to come to  his chamber seven days after for further review and further extraction of the remaining particles of the affected teeth.  But the complainant due to the reason best known to him had not attended the chamber of OP doctor and had not given chance to the Op doctor for further treatment.   Thus it is crystal clear that the Op cannot be charged with the negligence or deficiency of service.

All the above noted factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case against OP Doctor and for all these reasons the District Commission is of the view that this case is not maintainable in its present form and in the eye of law and there is no cause of action for filing this case.  So the above noted points of considerations are decided against the complainant.

The point of consideration of No.4 which is related with the question as to whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP or not?  The point of consideration of  No.5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any further relief in this case or not?   These two points of considerations are interlinked and /or interconnected with each other  and for that reason these two points of considerations are clubbed together and points of considerations jointly.  For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted two points of considerations and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by both parties and there is also necessity of making scrutiny of the documents filed by the parties of this case. On comparative studies of the evidence on record and also after examining the interrogatories and their reply and on close scrutiny of the documents filed by both parties this District commission finds that the complainant side has neither prayed for expert examination nor for getting any ex pert opinion on the issue of medical negligence on the part of the OP doctor.  In the absence ex pert opinion there is no scope of a determination as to whether the OP doctor has any negligence or deficiency of service in the matter of providing treatment to the complainant or not?.  Moreover, the complainant has neither examined Dr. Angshuman Datta, B.D.S,  Dr. Binay Kanta Bhattacharya nor Dr. Dipto De and also have not filed any evidence on affidavit of the above noted three doctors.  So the complainant has failed to produce any corroborative evidence in respect of his case.   So the complainant has intentionally withheld vital evidence.  Complainant has deliberately suppressed important evidence.  So the petitioner has not come before this court in clean hand and for that reason he is not entitled to get any equitable relief.   Moreover, the complainant side has time and again highlighted the matter that X-ray of the affected teeth and blood examinations have not been advised by OP Doctor.  In this connection the complainant side has neither produced any expert opinion or evidence of any other reputed Dentist in support of such point of contention.  So the above noted plea of the complainant side cannot be accepted.

A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant has failed to prove his case in respect of above noted two points of considerations no.4&5.

Recapitulating the above noted discussion this District Commission finds that the complainant has failed to prove his case which has been highlighted in the complaint petition.  Under this position this District Commission has no other alternative but to dismiss this case.

In the result it is accordingly

ordered

that this complaint case being no. 18 of 2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

No order is passed as to cost.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

            The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.