Haryana

Ambala

CC/179/2019

Sham Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Balwant - Opp.Party(s)

Ripanjit Singh

01 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	179 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	24.05.2019 22.10.2019
Date of decision	:	01.12.2022

 

Sham Lal, aged about 73 years, son of Lt. Shri Mahaphal, resident of House No. 34, Preet Colony, Jandli, Ambala City (HR)

…..ComplainantVersus

Versus

1. Dr. Balwant, B.D.S., M.I.D.A, 751/16, Sikligarh Mohalla, Near D.C. Road, Ambala Cantt. (HR)
2. Naresh Saini Pounti (Technician), 751/16, Sikligarh Mohalla, Near D.C. Road, Ambala Cantt. (HR)

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Ripanjit Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.    

                   Shri Varun Nand Kala, Advocate, counsel for the OPs

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of directions to them to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the loss caused or grant any other relief which this Commission may deems fit.

2.             Brief facts of this case are that due to old age, the complainant got problem in chewing food as his teeth and jaws became weak. As such, he contacted the OPs in the mid week of June, 2018, for treatment. After thorough check up, OP No.1 advised for implantation of teeth and demanded Rs.80,000/. Ultimately, OP No.1 agreed for Rs.62,000/- and took advance of Rs.5,000/- and asked the complainant to come after two-three days along with the balance amount of Rs.57,000/-. After 2 days the complainant visited the clinic of OP No.1. The remaining amount of Rs.57,000/- was also paid by the complainant. The OPs started treatment and implanted teeth and assured the complainant that the implanted teeth will work for life. When the complainant asked about the receipt of the amount paid to the OP No.1, then OP No.2 told him that it is not required as the OP no.1 has issued a slip on his letter head and that OP no.1 has written the amount on it. Being an old aged person the complainant believed the OPs. After about one and half month i.e. in the month of August, 2018, the complainant again got problem in chewing food. Initially, the complainant ignored the same as he thought that it was a superficial pain after implantation of teeth, but when this problem increased day by day, he contacted the OP no. 1. On this, OP No.1 assured the complainant that the problem will vanish after few days. However, OP No.2 did some treatment and advised the complainant to take some medicines which were given by the OPs from their clinic. The complainant took all the medicine as per the prescription but in the month of October, 2018 the complainant's teeth started bleeding and again developed the problem while chewing food. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OPs and they again gave medicines and asked him to wait for 15-20 days for the settlement of teeth. However, the daily life of the complainant became bad, day by day, as he was not able to eat food properly due to displaced/loose teeth and he also became bodily weak. Thereafter, it became a routine for the complainant to visit the OPs but ultimately, they refused to treat the complainant and now he is still feeling problem in chewing food with bleeding teeth. The complainant is an issue less person and living alone as his wife is no more and there is no one to look after him in the age of about 73 years. OPs have failed to implant the teeth properly, hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts etc.  On merits, it has been stated the OPs have not implanted teeth of the complainant, not taken any amount as alleged by the complainant. The plea taken by the complainant is false because the procedure of implantation at the age of 73 years is very difficult and lengthy process, which cannot happen in two or three days. In such an age it is very difficult for doctor to implant teeth. As a matter of fact, the complainant came in the clinic with the problem that he was suffering from toothache due to infection. OP No.1 gave some medicines to him. OP No.1 never treated the complainant nor it has facility of X-ray. When the complainant visited the clinic, due to old age some of his teeth were broken. Complainant unnecessary created dispute and filed this complaint in order to harass and grab money from the OPs. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Since despite opportunity given, the OPs did not tender their evidence, as such, the evidence of the OPs closed vide order dated 05.08.2022.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OPs had taken Rs.62,000/-, from the complainant to implant teeth. The OPs failed to do the implantation in proper manner as a result of which complainant did not get any relief. As such, complainant requested the OPs for the refund of the amount paid by him but the OP refused to refund the said amount. As such, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service and also indulged into unfair trade practice.
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that no implantation of teeth of the complainant has been done by the OPs nor any amount has been taken from the complainant for the said purpose. Complainant visited the OPs for routine checkup of his teeth as he was suffering from toothache, as a result whereof, he was prescribed some medicines. He further submitted that complainant has not placed on record any evidence in support of the allegations leveled by him against the OPs.
8.            The only moot question that falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether, the complainant has been able to prove that he had paid total amount of Rs.62,000/- to  OP No.1 towards treatment of implantation of fixed teeth or not. It may be stated here that though in his complaint, the complainant has alleged that he paid the said amount to OP No.1 for implantation of his teeth, yet, not even a single document in the shape of any payment receipt etc. having been issued by the OPs, has been placed on record by him. The complainant has placed on record only two prescription slips, Annexure C-1 and C-2 issued by OP No.1 in his favour, perusal whereof reveals that some medicines have been prescribed by OP No.1 to the complainant for his teeth. From these prescription slips, it is not coming out that the teeth of the complainant have been implanted by OP No.1 with the assistance of OP No.2. No other document has been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the OPs have implanted his teeth. In our considered opinion, to prove his case, the complainant was duty bound to convince this Commission, by way of placing on record documentary evidence in support of his version, which he has miserably failed to do. Under these circumstances, when neither payment of sale consideration by the complainant to OP No.1 has been proved nor the alleged treatment taken by the complainant from the OPs has been proved, as such, the oral allegations leveled by the complainant cannot be considered to hold the OPs deficient in providing service or guilty of adoption of unfair trade practice. 
9.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in that regard. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainants, free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.              

Announced:- 01.12.2022

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President