Date of Filing: 28.06.2019

Date of Judgment: 09.12.2021

Mrs.  Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble  President

This complaint is filed by the complainant, Sri Anil Barman Chakraborty, under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 against the O.P namely Dr. Indranil Ganguli, BDS (Cosmetics Dentists), alleging deficiency in service on his part.

The case of the complainant is short is that O.P is a Cosmetics Dentist and is carrying on business under the name and style Trident Dental Clinic. Complainant having trouble in his teeth went to the O.P on 2.4.2018, 4.4.2018 and on 10.4.2018, wherein O.P extracted several teeth of the complainant. O.P proposed to the complainant for setting up his teeth sets both upper and lower on payment of Rs.5000/-. Complainant thus paid the entire amount towards making charge of that denture upper and lower. But after delivery of the dentures, complainant found it defective as he could not  use the same. So, he approached the O.P who made certain minor corrections. But dentures did not fit in the mouth of the complainant. So, he again approached the O.P. Again certain minor repair was done but it did not fit. So, complainant requested the O.P to refund the amount paid by him of Rs.5000/- which O.P refused to pay. For using of the said defective teeth sets complainant has suffered injury in his jaw. So, the present complaint has been filed for directing the O.P to refund Rs.5000/- and for compensation.

Complainant has filed the prescription issued by the O.P and the receipts showing payment of Rs.5000/- towards the teeth set/complete denture.

On perusal of the record it appears that inspite of service of notice no step has been taken by the O.P and thus case proceeded exparte.

Only point requires determination is whether complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

            In support of his claim that he was examined by the O.P and extraction of teeth was done and also the denture was prepared on payment of cost of Rs.5000/- , complainant has filed the prescriptions and the money receipt issued by the O.P. On perusal of the said money receipt it is evident that price of complete denture amounting to Rs.5000/- was paid by the complainant to the O.P which according to the complainant is defective, as it does not fit in his mouth. Since, before this Commission there is absolutely no contrary material to counter and rebut the claim of the complainant, complainant is entitled to the relief towards the physical and mental suffering. However, since there is no material before this Commission that complainant made another denture or complete teeth set from some other place by making necessary payment and that he is not using the teeth set which is prepared by the O.P, the refund of amount of Rs.5000/- as claimed by the complainant cannot be allowed. It is nowhere stated by the complainant that he is not using the said teeth set prepared by O.P anymore. So, on consideration of the entire aspect as the  complainant did undergo physical as well as mental suffering due to the denture which was unfit in his mouth, the complainant is entitled to compensation. Thus an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is justified as compensation and the litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

Hence,

                 Ordered

That CC/322/2019 is allowed exparte.

O.P is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within 60 days from this date, in default of payment, same shall carry interest @8% p.a.