Haryana

Sonipat

CC/363/2015

Smt. Kamlesh W/o Ram Bhaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Ankur Jain - Opp.Party(s)

Azad Atri

23 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

Complaint No.363 of 2015                             Instituted on:29.09.2015

                                Date of order:23.11.2015

 

Kamlesh wife of Ram Bhaj Singla, r/o H.No.2958, 2^nd Floor, New Housing Board Colony, Sector 23, Sonepat.

 

                                      ..Complainant.

 

                   Versus

 

Dr Ankur Jain, BDS, Furniture Wali Gali, near Shiva Shiksha Sadan, Garhi Ghasita, Sonepat at present doctor in Darya Ram Hospital, Murthal road, Sonepat.

 

                                           ..Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

BEFORE-    NAGENDER SINGH-PRESIDENT.

PRABHA DEVI-MEMBER.

D.V. RATHI-MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Shri Azad Attri, Adv. for complainant.

Respondent ex-parte.

 

O R D E R

 

        The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the respondent alleging therein that her daughter Somi was having her teeth in zig-zag manner and not in proper shape & size and for the treatment, she went to the clinic of the respondent on 12.6.2014. The respondent assured for giving better treatment and demand Rs.21,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as the respondent agreed to take the balance amount of Rs.11000/- after completion of treatment.  On 8.9.2014, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque no.552111 dated 8.9.2014 for the treatment of her daughter.  The respondent gave treatment to the complainant’s daughter for about 14 months, but he was unable to treat the teeth of her daughter.  The daughter of the complainant felt pain in her teeth and jaw.  The complainant requested the respondent on 31.8.2015 to treat her daughter, but of no use, rather the respondent demanded Rs.11000/- from the complainant.  The teeth of the daughter of the complainant are still in the same position as were at the time of first visit of the complainant to the clinic of the respondent and this act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.  So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       Notice was sent to the respondent through through registered post. But the respondent refused to accept the said notice and due to this, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2015.

3.       We have heard the ex-parte arguments advanced by the complainant and have also gone through the entire relevant record placed on the case file very carefully.

4.       Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant’s daughter Somi was having her teeth in zig-zag manner and not in proper shape & size and for the treatment, she went to the clinic of the respondent on 12.6.2014. The respondent assured for giving better treatment and demand Rs.21,000/- from the complainant.  The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- as the respondent agreed to take the balance amount of Rs.11000/- after completion of treatment.  On 8.9.2014, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque no.552111 dated 8.9.2014 for the treatment of her daughter.  The respondent gave treatment to the complainant’s daughter for about 14 months, but he was unable to treat the teeth of her daughter.  The daughter of the complainant felt pain in her teeth and jaw.  The complainant requested the respondent on 31.8.2015 to treat her daughter, but of no use, rather the respondent demanded Rs.11000/- from the complainant.  The teeth of the daughter of the complainant are still in the same position as were at the time of first visit of the complainant to the clinic of the respondent and this act of the respondent has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

         From the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and Mark A, it is proved that the complainant’s daughter has taken the treatment from the respondent.

         The document Mark D dated 15.9.2015 proves that the complainant’s daughter has taken the treatment from Dayanand Hospital, Sonepat regarding RCT. The document Mark B dated 20.11.2015 and Mark C dated 18.10.2015 does not bear the name of the patient.

         The bare perusal of the documents shows that initially the complainant’s daughter took treatment regarding braces, but could not get the complete treatment.

         So, from the record placed on record by the complainant, it is established that the complainant has took different treatment from the respondent-doctor and from the doctor of Dayanand Hospital.  There is no expert evidence led by the complainant in support of her case to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  So, in the absence of the expert evidence  and on the basis of the documents placed on record by the complainant, the respondent cannot be held deficient in his services in any manner.  In our view, onus heavily lies on the complainant to prove his case by leading expert evidence in support of her case and merely alleging allegations is of no avail.  Thus, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove her case against the respondent.  No doubt the respondent has been proceeded against ex-parte, but the complainant cannot take the benefit of the same as it was incumbent upon the complainant to prove her own case against the respondent doctor.  Thus, no directions of any kind can be given to the respondent as the present complaint has no merit and thus, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

        Copy of this order be also sent to the respondents for information.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (D.V.Rathi)           (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF,          President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 23.11.2015