Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/752/2015

Tanvir Malik - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Devender Punia

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/752/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	06/11/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	15/12/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Tanvir Malik S/o Late Lt. Col. Dalbir Singh, R/o H.No. 6319/A, Rajeev Vihar, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Manjra, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant.

 

Versus

 

 

1. Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Principal.

 

(2)  Dr. Rahul Sharma, Associate Professor, Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh (Deleted vide order dated 30.12.2015).

 

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SMT.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Devinder Punia, Advocate.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Prof. Devinder Singh, Auth. Representative of Opposite Party No.1, along with Sh. Ashish Jain, Principal.
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Deleted.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Put in brief, the facts of the case are that on 06.09.2015, the Complainant went to the OP-Institute for treatment of his braces, where he was advised to get his wisdom tooth extracted. On 10.09.2015, tooth extraction surgery for Tooth No.28 and 38 was done by Opposite Party No.2. It has been alleged that Tooth No.38 was extracted properly, but instead of Tooth No.28, Tooth No.27 was extracted due to the negligence of the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant also confirmed the said fact from Dr. Batth’s Dental Health Care Implant & Cosmetic Centre, Panchula. Thereafter, the Complainant gave a notice to the Opposite Party No.1 on 15.09.2015, who initially assured to compensate him, but subsequently did nothing. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      During the proceedings, on coming to notice that since Opposite Party No.2 has expired, Learned Counsel for the Complainant stated that as he has claimed relief qua the Institute i.e. Opposite Party No.1 alone, he has no objection if Opposite Party No.2  (who has since expired), is deleted from the array of the Opposite Parties. As such, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 30.12.2015.

 

4.      Opposite Party No.1 resisted the complaint by filing its written statement, inter alia, pleading that Dr. Rahul Sharma (Opposite Party No.2) treated the Complainant to the best of his capability, as he was an experienced doctor of the Institute and till the time of his death, there was no Complaint against him. Had the said Opposite Party No.2 been alive, he would have defend himself, with regard to his professional and personal conduct in the instant case. Furthermore, since Opposite Party No.1 is a non-profit institution, no liability can be fastened on it. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party No.1 have been controverted.

 

6.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

7.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Complainant and Authorized Representative of Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.

 

8.      The case of the Complainant is that he went to the Opposite Party No.1 Institute for his tooth treatment, where he was advised for the extraction of Tooth No.28 and 38. The sole grouse of the Complainant is that instead of Tooth No.28, Tooth No.27 was extracted due to the negligence of the Opposite Party.

 

9.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party No.1 Institute is that the treating doctor i.e. Dr. Rahul Sharma (Opposite Party No.2) had already died and has further contended that no liability can be fastened on it being a non-profit institution.

 

10.      It is pertinent to mention here that initially, the Complaint was filed against two parties i.e. Dr. Rahul Sharma (Opposite Party No.2) who performed the Tooth Extraction Surgery of the Complainant and the Dental Institute as Opposite Party No.1 where the aforesaid treating doctor was serving and so attended the Complainant. Therefore, notice was sent to both the parties. It was brought to the notice of this Forum on 30.12.2015 that the treating doctor – Dr. Rahul Sharma (Opposite Party No.2) had already died, therefore, the learned counsel for the Complainant deleted the name of Dr. Rahul Sharma (Opposite Party No.2) from the array of the parties and claimed the relief against Opposite Party No.1 i.e. the Dental Institute only where Opposite Party No.2 was serving as Assistant Professor and performed tooth extraction surgery of the Complainant. 

 

11.      It is noteworthy that the Complainant filed an application for seeking expert medical opinion on 18.7.2016. Therefore, vide order dated 25.7.2016, a letter was written to the Director, Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, to constitute a Committee of Doctors expert in the field and to examine the X-ray and other records of the Complainant. Thereafter, expert opinion report was received by this Forum on 26.10.2016.

 

12.      The first question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Complainant is a consumer qua Opposite Party No.1 or not, as it has been contended by Opposite Party No.1 that it is a non-profit institution and functioning like a Govt. Institution on the principle and basis of not earning any profit from its patients? In our opinion, the Complainant falls very much in the category of a ‘Consumer’, because as per Annexure C-1 at Pg. No.7 of the paper book, the Complainant paid Rs.200/- each for the aforesaid extractions. Moreover, the Govt. Hospitals/ Institutions may not be commercial in any sense, but on the overall consideration of the objectives and the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it would not be possible to treat Opposite Party No.1 differently, particularly, when the Complainant paid for his required treatment.

 

13.      It is evident from Annexure C-1 the Out Patient Record Slip that the Complainant was advised the extraction of Tooth No.28 and 38 and also Complainant paid the required fee for the same. Annexure C-2 is the opinion report of one another doctor confirming the presence of 28^th tooth and absence of 27^th one. Annexure C-3 is a notice sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 for the redressal of his grievance, which was not replied by it. It is noteworthy that an inquiry into this unfortunate incident was conducted which confirms that Tooth No.27 is missing and Tooth No.28 is unerupted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is sheer negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1 for getting the Complainant treated wrongly. On account of negligence on the part of Opposite Party, the Complainant lost one of his permanent valuable tooth at such a young age. Article 47 of the Constitution of India recognizes the improvement of Public Health as one of the primary duties of the State. Public Health can be improved by having best of Doctors, Specialists and Super Specialists. But in the present case, due to improper monitoring of the patient/ Complainant, he suffered loss of one Tooth which is permanent and irreparable loss. The Complainant must have visited Opposite Party No.1 Institute with some trust being a prestigious Institute of the City, but resultantly the act of Opposite Party No.1 for giving a permanent tooth loss to the Complainant and thereafter non-replying to his notice for redressal of his grievance rather forcing him to knock the doors of this Forum to get justice, certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. It was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 Institute to take proper care of the Complainant during his treatment at its Hospital. The Complainant suffered dual loss one of his permanent Tooth and later his precious time which he had to devote to rush for the present litigation. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 is writ large.

 

14.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party No.1 is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to:-

[a]  To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation;

 

15.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid, apart from complying with the directions mentioned in sub-para [b] above. 

 

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

Announced

15^th December, 2016                                                                   

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                      Sd/-         

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”