Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/134/2020

Ms. Veena Suri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Anshu Soni, BDS, Sono Dental Care Center, Clinic - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Gupta, Adv.

07 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	134 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	24.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	07.12.2020

 

                                       

                       

 

Mrs.Veena Suri aged 75 years a Sr.Citizen wife of Late Sh.Tirlochan Singh Suri, r/o 2778, Palsaura, Sector 55, UT, Chandigarh -160055.

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     Dr.Anshu Suri, BDS, Soni Dental Care Centre, Clinic Booth No.36, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh -160030

 

…. Opposite Party.

2.     Dr.Karan Chawla, Dr.Karan Chawla, Multispecialty Famicare Dental Clinic, SCO 78-79, 1st Floor, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh -160015.

...Proforma Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:
		SHRI RAJAN DEWAN,	PRESIDENT
		SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA,	MEMBER
		SHRI B.M.SHARMA	MEMBER
Argued by:-
	Sh.Sudhir Gupta, Adv. for the complainant
	OPs exparte.

      

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly stated, the facts of case as alleged by the complainant are that  OP No.1, who claimed to be an expert in implant of dentures, advised her to get new denture implanted from him. She was examined by OP No.1 on 26.04.2019 who advised treatment against receipt of part payment of Rs.1,000/- as mentioned on the prescription slip itself including other payment amounting to Rs.5500/-. She disclosed all her health conditions to OP No.1 and she was attended to by taking measurements etc. and then she was advised on various dates till 07.05.2019 when the denture was delivered and tried for use by fixing thereafter on 13.05.2019 as per prescription slip (Annexure C-1).  It has further been averred that  OP No.1 stated that she will have no problem whatsoever and she will be completely comfortable in using the denture for her usual day to day acts. However while using the denture, she realized lot of problems of fixation and use as she was not in a position to utilize the same on account of fitting problem and she was rendered in the same position as she was earlier before getting the denture implanted.  She complained regarding it to OP No.1 who advised her to use the same irrespective of the problems being faced by her.  It has further been averred that she could not use the denture for the purposes to which the same was got designed despite paying hefty amount to OP No.1.  It has further been averred that due to the negligent act of OP No.1, she suffered boils and scars in her gums and mouth and she was rendered useless with respect to chewing of food and any intake as required for livelihood on day to day basis.  Finally, she contacted OP No.2-Dr.Karan Chawla who also advised her full mouth denture against Rs.15,000/-.  However, OP No.2 could not give her proper denture which again found to be misfit and she had to suffer lot of problems including bruises and ulcers in her mouth. Ultimately, she served a legal notice dated 13/21.01.2020 upon the OPs and on receipt of the notice, OP No.2 returned Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. It has further been averred that she is ready to return the defective denture to OP No.1 which she had earlier offered but not accepted by him as he refused to accept his mistake and refund the amount.   Alleging that the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.     
2.         Despite due service,  the OPs failed to put in appearance and as a result thereof they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated13.08.2020.
3.         We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         In her evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence her detailed affidavit in support of the averments made in the complaint along with the documents mentioned in the complaint.   A bare perusal of the prescription slip dated 26.04.2019 issued by Dr.Anshu Soni, Soni Dental Care Centre, Chandigarh shows that OP No.1 had charged a sum of Rs.6,500/- on account of implantation of denture from the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has specifically deposed in her affidavit that while using the denture, she realized lot of problems of fixation and use as she was not in a position to utilize the same and she was rendered in the same position as she was earlier before getting the denture implanted.   She has also deposed in her affidavit that she could not use the denture for the purposes to which the same was designed despite paying hefty amount.  She has also deposed in her affidavit that she suffered boils and scars in her gums and mouth and she was rendered useless with respect to chewing of food and any intake as required for livelihood on day to day basis.  Annexure C-2 is a copy of the legal notice dated 13.01.2020 served upon OPs whereby she requested them to refund the entire amount charged from her on account of fixation of dentures as the same were neither fitted in her mouth nor could be used. She has also deposed in her affidavit that OP No.2 refunded Rs.15000/- to her after receipt of the notice and as such she does not claim any relief qua him.   It is also apt to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint, she has also placed on record the dentures in an envelope marked as Annexure CX to show her bona fide.
5.         Pertinently all the averments made by the complainant in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted as OP No.1 has failed to contest the case despite due service. It is, thus, established beyond all reasonable doubt that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine and she has to suffer lot of problems due to mis-fitting of the dentures.   Besides this, OP No.1 has failed to redress her genuine grievance despite repeated requests and receipt of the legal notice, resulting into immense, mental and physical harassment to her.   Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed against OP No.1 and the same is accordingly allowed. OP No.1  is directed as under:-

[i]            To refund a sum of Rs.6,500/- to the complainant.

[ii]           To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & physical harassment to the complainant.

 [iii]         To pay Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its actual payment besides litigation costs.
8.         The complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed as no relief has been claimed.
9.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
Announced	(B.M.SHARMA)	[RAJAN DEWAN]	(PRITI MALHOTRA)
07/12/2020	MEMBER	PRESIDENT	MEMBER