DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 265/11
Ms. Billa Kapoor,
D/o Late Sh. Darbari Lal,
R/o A1/144, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi. -Complainant
Vs
Dr. Devesh Oberoi,
Clinic at:
C-31, Defence Colony,
New Delhi – 110024. -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 03.08.11 Date of Order: 21.01.16
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in succinct, is that she had some trouble in her teeth as detailed in the complaint and she on 26.11.08 approached the OP who claimed himself to be a post graduate dentist and an expert in teeth implantation and renowned and very good dentist having returned from USA and Germany and the OP told her that he could implant all the teeth (in all 24 teeth) of the complainant stage wise and the implanted teeth would look very beautiful and would work like normal teeth for life long. He further assured that the entire process shall take about one year and thereafter there shall be no pain in either the teeth or in gums and that he would charge Rs. 2 Lacs for the entire implantation process besides Rs. 12,000/- for extraction of the then existing teeth and there shall be no extra charge. OP agreed to receive Rs. 1,92,000/- only. The OP started the treatment and charged Rs. 2,33,000/- from her on different dates as detailed in the complaint. It is, however, submitted that during the entire process of implantation carried out by the OP and even after the completion of process of implanting 15 teeth as told by the OP and even today the complainant has to suffer from acute pain in her gums, jaws, mouth and teeth and she has not been able to talk or eat anything properly but the OP did not make any sincere efforts to resolve her complaint despite her writing several letters to the OP. According to the complainant, the teeth implanted and the material used in implantation of teeth by the OP are of sub-standard quality and are of no use to the complainant and the OP has increased the teeth problem of the complainant. The complainant approached the Delhi Government Mediation and Conciliation Center, behind Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi where the OP agreed to change the superstructure of the implants in the lower jaw of the complainant free of cost and also agreed to make necessary improvement in the implants on the posterior side of the upper jaw free of cost. The OP agreed and assured the complainant that after these changes/treatment to be provided by the OP, the implant of teeth would look and work like normal and the complainant shall not suffer any problem as she had been suffering. In compliance of the said agreement before the Mediation Center, OP replaced the implant in the lower jaw but the OP did not provide any treatment to the implants of the upper jaw despite requests. Even the new implants on the lower jaw are not in symmetry and their size and position in the jaw is not according to the requirement of the jaw of the complainant. According to her, the OP has not taken any further steps in removing her complaint; she wrote letters to the OP along with a legal notice dated 20.6.12 sent through her advocate but in vain. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and restrictive trade practice, complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:
- to direct the OP to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,33,000/- received by him from the complainant for the teeth implantation process,
- to direct the OP to pay to the complainant the expenses incurred by the complainant on her medicines, X-rays, transportation etc. amounting to Rs. 20,000/-,
- to direct the OP to pay to the complainant to compensate the complainant for her sufferings physical as well as mental pain and agony and compensation/damages to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-,
- To direct the OP to pay to the complainant litigation charges amount to Rs. 50,000/-.
In the written statement, OP has inter-alia stated that the OP had informed the complainant about the treatment plan and she was very clearly made to understand that no treatment is permanent in nature and a lifetime guarantee cannot be given; that the teeth which the complainant had lost were due to poor oral hygiene and, therefore, the complainant was made aware of her poor oral hygiene and instructed and educated on the importance of proper and adequate oral hygiene as is the duty of any Dental Surgeon. The cost of treatment to the complainant would have been Rs. 2,40,000/- as detailed in the written statement. It is stated that the implantation and root canal treatment had been provided to the complainant on various dates. It is, however, admitted that the complainant had paid Rs. 2,33,000/- to the OP. It is stated that the implants were manufactured by M/s Equinox, Holland under the brand name ‘UNITI’ having the necessary international certification and are manufactured in Holland and are also being used by many renowned implantologists in Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. According to the OP, he is an M.D.S. from Bombay University and has served in the Indian navy for 23 years as a Dental Surgeon; he has been conferred with the Chief of Naval Staff’s Commendation for the quality of Dental treatment. According to him, he has done a course in implantology in Germany under Prof. Lang; he is a fellow of the International College of Oral Implantology based in the US and also a fellow of the Indian Society of Oral Implantology. He has denied the claims made by the complainant with regard to deficiency in service and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, OP has filed his own affidavit in evidence.
Complainant has relied on documents Ex. CW1/1 to Ex. CW1/20. OP has relied on documents Ex. RW1/1/, RW1/2 and RW1/3.
Written arguments have been filed.
We have heard the complainant in person and the Proxy Counsel for OP and have also carefully perused the record.
In order to prove that the implantation of teeth by the OP was not proper and the OP had used the sub-standard material, the complainant has placed reliance on the report Ex. CW1/18. The report is dated 10.6.13 and has been issued by a Doctor of New Delhi Oral and Dental Clinic, E-4, Basement Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24. The said certificate has been issued under the signatures of a BDS Doctor. On the other hand, OP undeniably an M.D.S. from Bombay University and has served in the Indian navy for 23 years as a Dental Surgeon. He has been conferred with the Chief of Naval Staff’s Commendation for the quality of Dental treatment. He has done a course in implantology in Germany under Prof. Lang. He is a fellow of the International College of Oral Implantology based in the US and also a fellow of the Indian Society of Oral Implantology. Therefore, report Ex. CW1/18 obtained during the pendency of the complaint does not inspire any confidence. Moreover, from a perusal of the said report, it is clear that the complainant had gone to the said clinic with trouble in eating on the right side with crowns broken. She was advised to undergo re-restoration of teeth along with two new implants so that the function of chewing could be accomplished properly. Vide estimate dated 10.6.13 (Ex. CW1/19) the said clinic had given an approx. estimate of Rs. 2.25 lacs of the treatment. However, from the perusal of the said report it does not become at all clear that the material chosen by the OP in the implantation of the teeth or crown was of sub-standard quality or it was not manufactured by the Equinox, Holland under the brand name ‘UNITI’ having the necessary international certification and being used by many renowned implantologists in Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. Except the averment made by the complainant and the above stated certificate Ex. CW1/18, there is no other medical evidence on the record to show that the OP had not given dental treatment to the complainant in accordance with the established procedure or he committed any deficiency in service.
As per the averments made in the affidavit of the OP, after the agreement between the parties before the Mediation Center the complainant came to his clinic on 2.3.13. Upon examination, she was found having good gingival condition and there was no clinical evidence in the oral cavity suggestive of anemia; there was no evidence of bleeding gums and no evidence of any pathology. OP did scaling and polishing of her teeth, buccal cusp of lower left tooth was slightly rounded and polished and the complainant was advised on oral care and hygiene. According to him, the copy of prescription dated 2.3.13 is Ex. RW1/2 and the photographs of the complainant dated 2.3.13 are Ex. RW1/3. From a perusal of the photographs Ex. RW1/3, we are of firm opinion that OP has done his job efficiently. As stated by the OP, no lifetime guarantee for any medical treatment can be given by a doctor to the patient. In our considered opinion, the complainant has, therefore, failed to establish the case of deficiency in service or restrictive trade practice on the part of the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 21.01.16.
Case No. 265/11
21.1.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
By D K yadav
