DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

          Complaint Case No.:1334 of 2009

 Date of Inst: 23.09.2009

                Date of Decision:06.07.2010

Poonam Devi w/o Shri Ram, House No.2294-B, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.

                                  ---Complainant

V E R S U S

Dr.Ashima Kohli Booth No.17, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh (Near Sector 29-30 Traffic Lights).

Permanent Address:

Dr.Ashima Kohli age 37 years w/o Sh.Gagan Kohli r/o House No.394, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party

QUORUM       

              SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA         PRESIDENT

              SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI      MEMBER

              SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

PRESENT:      Sh.Rajbir Sherawat, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Anil Kumar Malik, Advocate for complainant.

Sh.Gagan Kohli, Adv. for OP.

                            ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Mrs.Poonam Devi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  to :-

i)              Refund Rs.2200/- spent on the treatment taken by her because of extraction of healthy tooth.

ii)         Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

iii)    Pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

2.        In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 14.03.2009 she felt severe pain in her lower left jaw. So she visited the Govt. Dispensary, Sector 3, Chandigarh (MLA Hostel). The Dentist present there confirmed the location of infected tooth and diagnosed that her 6^th tooth was tender and prescribed medicines for 3 days.  According to the complainant, on 16.06.2009, she again felt severe pain in her lower jaw so she visited the clinic of Dr.Ashima Kohli(OP) who checked the complainant.  Dr.Ashima Kohli(OP) diagnosed that 7^th tooth of her left lower jaw was carious resulting in pain in lower jaw.  Dr.Kohli prescribed medicines for 3 days and advised her to visit the clinic on 18.06.2009. As the pain was still persisting, the complainant again visited the clinic of OP on 18.06.2009. She also intimated OP that her 6^th tooth was found infected by the doctor at Government Dispensary, Sector 3, Chandigarh instead of 7^th tooth. OP assured that she would take note of it at the time of extraction of a tooth.  On the same day, Dr.Kohli extracted a tooth from her mouth and prescribed medicines for 5 days. Before extraction of tooth, the patient’s tooth was not x-rayed. She was further advised to visit the clinic in case swelling continued after two days. The complainant continued to suffer from pain and there was swelling in her mouth. Therefore, she visited the clinic of OP again on 20.06.2008 along with her husband. When OP checked her mouth, the husband of the complainant found that a wrong tooth had been extracted. The tooth which was carious was still intact. So the complainant enquired from OP as to why she had extracted the wrong tooth. On this, Dr.Kohli became enraged and started abusing her husband and the complainant. Dr.Kohli forced them to move out of the clinic. Astonished with the behaviour of OP, her husband called the police and made a complaint (C-4). On the basis of the same, DDR No.34 dated 20.06.2004(Annexure C-3) was registered. On 27.07.2009, the complainant was asked to visit the police station on 04.08.2009 as she was to be taken for medical checkup. On 04.08.2009, the complainant was taken to General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. Dr.Kohli also came there with a tooth in her hand. Dr.Kohli gave the said tooth to the doctor.

          The case of the complainant is that OP had been negligent while extracting the tooth and diagnosing her wrongly as instead of extracting 6^th tooth which was carious, Dr.Kohli extracted the 7^th tooth which was healthy. According to the complainant, it amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        In the reply filed by OP, it has been pleaded that on 16.06.2009 when the complainant visited her clinic, she checked her. The complainant specifically told her that she was feeling pain in 7^th tooth of her left lower jaw. She checked the said tooth and found that it was carious exposed resulting in pain. So she prescribed medicines for 3 days.  She specifically told her that she can either get root canal treatment or get the tooth extracted. The complainant was interested in extraction of the tooth. So she was asked to revisit the clinic on 18.06.2009. On 18.06.2009, she again enquired from the complainant if she wanted a root canal treatment or extraction of tooth. The complainant opted for extraction of tooth. So she extracted the tooth on that day and prescribed medicines for 5 days. It has further been pleaded that on 20.06.2009, the complainant along with her husband again came to the clinic. They started shouting. They alleged that OP had extracted a wrong tooth. She tried to pacify them and made them understand that the carious tooth has been extracted but the complainant and her husband did not listen to her and created a scene in front of her clinic. They also called the police and got a case registered.

          It has further been pleaded that on 04.08.2009,  Sh.Hans Raj, Police Inspector visited her clinic and asked her to handover the tooth which was extracted from the mouth of the complainant as the same was required for medical examination of the complainant. However, according to the complainant, she did not hand over the said tooth to the said inspector. Instead she herself went to the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh along with her husband and handedover the said tooth to the doctor. After examining the same, the doctor found that the said tooth was  carious and had been rightly extracted. Thus according to OP, she had extracted the carious tooth. Therefore, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on her part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

5.        The case of the complainant is that her 6^th tooth was carious and required extraction whereas the case of OP is that her 7^th tooth was carious and was rightly extracted.

6.        Annexure C-1 is the Out Patient Health Care card issued by Government Dispensary, Sector 3, Chandigarh. As per this document, 6^th tooth of her lower left jaw was found tender so medicine was prescribed for 3 days. Thereafter, on 16.06.2009, the complainant again felt pain in her lower jaw. So she visited the clinic of OP who checked her and diagnosed that her 7^th tooth was carious. Later on the said tooth was extracted. It is pertinent to mention here that on receipt of the complaint, the matter was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for opinion. After examining the complaint, the Medical Board constituted by the PGI, Chandigarh opined that first molar (6^th tooth) is asymptomatic but indicated for extraction and it is still present in the mouth of the complainant. The said report of the Medical Board of PGI confirms the case of the complainant to the extent that her 6^th tooth was carious and required extraction. It is pertinent to mention here that  neither the dentist at Government Dispensary, Sector 3, Chandigarh found that more than one tooth was carious nor OP herself had diagnosed that two teeth of the complainant were carious i.e. 6^th & 7^th tooth of the lower jaw. Thus both the doctors found that only one tooth was carious and required extraction.

7.        The case of the OP is that 7^th tooth was carious and was rightly extracted by her. Reliance has been placed on the report of the doctor at General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh which reads as under:-

“(2^nd Molar left side) given by police and sealed  and given back to Police.

     Tooth  is extracted.

     Tooth is carious exposed.

     Proximately and required extraction

     Root stump present.

              Sd/-“

8.        It is pertinent to mention here that  from the said report, it is apparent that the tooth which was checked and about which the report has been given was handed over to the doctor by the police whereas the admitted case of the OP is that she had not handed over the tooth which was extracted from the mouth of the complainant to the police and it was with her. According to the OP-2 she had handed over the tooth for examination to the doctor. However, the report qua that particular tooth has not been placed on record meaning thereby that report (Annx.C-7) does not pertain to the tooth which was extracted from mouth of the complainant. In these circumstances, the report (Annexure C-7) is of no consequence and from this report is not proved that 7^th tooth of the complainant was carious.

9.        For the sake of arguments, even if, it is admitted that the report (Annexure C-7) relates to the tooth which was given to the doctor at General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh by OP even then there is no evidence on record to prove that the said tooth was the same which was extracted by OP from the mouth of the complainant except her own self-serving deposition.

10.       From the Outpatient Health Care Card  issued by Government Dispensary, Sector 3, Chandigarh, it is apparent that 6^th tooth of the complainant was found carious and it required extraction. The expert opinion given by the Medical Board constituted by the PGI, Chandigarh also confirms that 6^th tooth of the complainant requires extraction though it was asymptomatic at the time of examination of the complainant. The said report also confirms that the 6^th tooth of the complainant which is carious and infected is still intact in the mouth of the complainant.  Meaning thereby the said tooth has not been extracted so far. As discussed above, from the evidence on record, it is not  proved that 7^th tooth was carious and infected  as the report of the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh does not relate to the tooth extracted from the mouth of the complainant.

          Thus, the version of the complainant has to be accepted. In these circumstances, from the evidence on record it is proved that OP extracted a healthy tooth from the mouth of the complainant instead of carious and infected tooth which amounts to deficiency in service on her part.

11.       In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to pay Rs.2200/- spent by the complainant on her treatment because of wrong extraction of the tooth. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/-as cost of litigation. 

12.       This order be complied with by OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OP shall be liable to refund the amount of Rs.52,200/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 23.09.2009 till its realization besides cost of litigation.

13.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

06.07.2010

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

cm

sd/-

(ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER