Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/357/2021

Bhupinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Jagmohan Gupta - Opp.Party(s)

Sudhir Gupta adv

07 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	357 of 2021
Date  of  Institution	:	11.06.2021
Date   of   Decision	:	07.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Bhupinder Pal Singh (Aadhar No.9446 36438046) son of late Sh.Tarlochan Singh Suri, resident of 2778, Ambedkar Awas Yojna, Palsaura, Sector 55, UT, Chandigarh 160055

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

Dr.Jagmohan Gupta, BDS, Kothi No.603, Phase I, Mohali 160055

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Sh.Sudhir Gupta, Counsel for the complainant

            Sh.Dilshad Singh Gill, Counsel for the OP

 

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

        The case of the complainant Mrs.Veena Suri (since deceased) precisely is that the complainant visited the OP for her dental problem and as per his advise, she agreed for implant of a new complete denture and as such paid him advance of Rs.2000/- on 02.01.2020. The OP took all necessary measurements etc. for implant of new denture.  It is submitted that on 10.1.2020 the OP delivered her the denture and assured her that she will have no problem in fixation and using the new denture and accordingly she paid Rs.8000/- as balance amount to the OP (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It is stated that while using the denture, the complainant faced many problems of fixation & use and she was not in a position to utilize the same on account of fitting problems.  The matter was brought to the notice of the OP doctor and he was told about the mis-fitting of the denture in question due to manufacturing problem, but despite of that the OP advised the complainant to use the said denture irrespective of the problems faced by her and said that the OP is not in a position to do anything else in the matter.  It is pleaded that despite having spent Rs.10,000/- on the purchase of denture and Rs.5000/- on  medicines & visits, no useful purpose was served to the complainant.  The complainant served a legal notice on the OP on 21.3.2021 through her counsel claiming refund of the amount and compensation for the lapses caused by the OP due to his medical negligence and non-performance of the requisite job as a  doctor (Ann.C-3 & C-4) but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant alleging said act & conduct of the OP as deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and medical negligence, causing harassment and loss to the complainant.

2]       The OP has filed written version stating that the complainant – Mrs.Veena Suri visited him for a new denture as a replacement for missing teeth, so the OP dentist followed a standard procedure in stages as is being followed across government dental colleges and hospitals and on 2.1.2020 first initial impression and measurements were taken on. On 3.1.2020 final impression and measurement were taken. On 4.1.2020 bite was registered for making of the denture. On 6.1.2020 trial of denture given and on 10.1.2020 final denture was delivered to the complainant. All the above mentioned dates and procedure followed on those dates is mentioned in Ann. C-1 as provided by the complainant. It is stated that after getting the complete denture, the complainant experienced some common side effects such as soreness, uneasiness, ulcers, bruises , etc and the answering OP dentist took note of side effects and rectified the denture points which caused irritation and soreness and advised the complainant to do warm saline rinses twice a day and avoid eating hard food for few days. It is also stated that the OP dentist also told the complainant that since denture is a foreign object being put in the mouth so it may cause some side effects such as soreness, bruises, ulcers, etc initially  and it usually takes some time for the body to adjust to a new denture and advised the complainant to come for regular follow up visits but the complainant never showed up.  It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable on the grounds of gross medical negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as these are mere allegation made by the complainant without any evidence to prove such allegations. It is also submitted that the allegation of medical negligence is a serious issue and it is for the person who sets up the case to prove negligence based on material on record or by way of evidence. It is pleaded that that the answering OP had done the required treatment as per standard procedure and medically the patient generally takes 2-6 weeks to adjust to the new denture as it is a foreign body being placed inside the mouth and if the complainant has not been able to undergo that reasonable adjustment period, no fault can be found with the answering OP.  It is further pleaded that no specific fault or lapse has been pointed out in the treatment procedure or the denture provided by the dentist and a mere allegation will not make a case of medical negligence unless it is proved by reliable evidence and is supported by expert evidence which the complainant has not produced.  It is further stated that the OP dentist acted in accordance with the standard, reasonable competent medical means at the time and exercised reasonable degree of care and skill and knowledge which he possesses.  It is also stated that the complainant’s claim that she experienced deterioration of health and was not in a position to eat and digest normal food, then in such a condition the patient should have immediately visited some dental hospital or the answering OP or any other dentist to get treated for the above issues but the complainant did not visit and no record or evidence of any visit has been provided by the complainant.  Denying all other allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertion of the OP made in the reply.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the entire documents on record including written submissions.

 

6]       The thorough perusal of the documents on record as well as the pleadings reveal that the complainant has alleged mis-fitting of the denture due to manufacturing problem as well as medical negligence on the part of the OP Doctor. 

7]       However, the complainant has failed to establish such allegations by bringing on record any credible evidence in the shape of an expert report/opinion and in the absence of which, no manufacturing defect in the denture or medical negligence on the part of the OP Doctor can be established.  Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

 

8]       In view of above observations, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to establish her case. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

9]       Pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.  

Announced

07.02.2024                                                          

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER