BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 419/2001
Dated : 30.11.2010
Complainant:
T. Kamalamma, 'Tapasya', Opposite Dale View, Vattavila, Etturuthy, Kattakkada P.O.
(By adv. S. Madhu)
Opposite party:
Dr. K. Sanal Kumar, F.R.H.S, Aravind Hospital, Treasury Junction, Kattakkada – 695 572.
(By adv. Indira Raveendran)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 16.11.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 01.10.2010, the Forum on 30.11.2010 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Complainant in this case is a maid servant. Whileso she had a dental pain and subsequently she went to the opposite party's clinic and made consultation on 17.04.2001 in connection with the dental pain. The opposite party advised the complainant that this was happened due to the hydropsy and advised the complainant to remove two teeth in the upper jaw. As per this advice the complainant is forced to obey this. And after removing the two teeth the opposite party prescribed some tablets to the complainant and on the very same day she left the clinic. But after some time, the complainant suffered severe dental pain and became hydropsy and the complainant made a further consultation on the very next day. On that day also the opposite party prescribed some medicines and made an assurance that it will be cured on the next day. But even after three weeks she could not feel any relief and the pain and sufferings became untolerable. And thereafter the complainant went to Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram for consultation on 14.05.2001. After tests the department of Periodometics found that the pain and hydropsy had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party who had conducted the removal of the teeth. Because some root parts and remnants of the teeth are still in the gum of the teeth. This was caused only due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant alleges that due to the negligence of the opposite party the complainant suffered too much mental agony, pain and sufferings and had spend a huge amount of money even for transportation and for medicines and for undergoing tests. For the redressal of her grievances the complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum.
Opposite party in this case has filed version contending the entire allegations. The opposite party stated that the complainant had not approached the opposite party for a consultation on 17.04.2001 as alleged. The complainant came to see the opposite party on 17.04.2001 with the complaint of dental pain following the extraction of her two teeth in the lower jaw before three days at some other clinic. When the opposite party has thoroughly examined the complainant, it was realised that there was abscess and severe pain at the extracted site. After a thorough examination of the extracted site, the opposite party had prescribed Tab Analgesic and antibiotics as it was extremely necessary to be taken. Tab Analgesic is an anti inflammatory drug to be taken for immediate healing. The opposite party has never advised the complainant to remove her teeth. The opposite party further submitted that normally for a simple extraction, for complete healing it will take 30 days time. If the complainant had taken prescribed medicines immediately after the surgery of the teeth, no complication would have developed. Complainant is blaming the doctors without taking the medicines properly. The complainant had not given a second visit to the opposite party's clinic though the opposite party advised her to come up for a review after 3 days after taking the prescribed medicines. Though opposite party had insisted her to come and show the nature of the extracted site she did not do so. Instead she had sent her husband stating that the pain still continued at the extracted site. The opposite party advised to continue the antibiotics and Analgesic till its course is over. Moreover without seeing the patient, the opposite party could not change the medicines already prescribed. The opposite party further stated that she has gone to the Dental College in connection with the treatment for a different dental disease. Had the complainant visited the opposite party for a second time after the initial treatment, he could have understood about the improvement of the treatment given on 17.04.2001. If necessary, she would have been advised to take X-ray and if any remnants of the tooth remained in the extracted site he would have advised her for a surgery. The opposite party had not extracted the teeth of the complainant as alleged. The opposite party cannot be attributed with any liability due to the negligence because he had immediately prescribed proper medicines for the abscess and pain at the site from where the teeth were extracted. The opposite party is not responsible for the follow-up treatments, as she did not come back after 17.04.2001. So the best effective treatment was given to her on the day she consulted the opposite party. Instead of performing her part, turning around and alleging about negligence on the part of the opposite party is not justifiable. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In this case complainant and opposite party has filed affidavits and has been examined as PW1 and DW1 respectively. From the complainant's side 7 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. From the side of the opposite party 4 documents were marked.
Points that would arise for consideration are:-
Whether there has been negligence occurred from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefts sought for?
Points (i) & (ii):- To prove her contentions the complainant has produced 7 documents before this Forum which were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the prescription slip issued by the opposite party to the complainant on 17.04.2001. Nowhere in this document it has been stated the teeth has been extracted. Ext. P2 is the treatment record of Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is seen that the O.P Ticket date is 14.05.2001. Through this document we can understand that the root of her teeth has been extracted on 15.05.2001. The treatment continued till 19.05.2001. The treatment was in connection with the pain and suffering of the teeth extraction of the complainant. Ext. P3 is the payment receipt of coupon issued by Hospital Development Society. Ext. P4 is the cash bill of medicines for an amount of Rs. 105.25. Ext. P5 series are the tourist taxi receipts for the payment of taxi charge from Kattakkada to Medical College. Ext. P6 is the copy of advocate notice dated 24.05.2001 issued by the complainant to opposite party demanding compensation. Ext. P7 is the reply notice. Ext. D1 is the opposite party's prescription slip with instructions to the patients to be followed after tooth extraction. Ext. D1(a) is another type of prescription slip without the instructions. Opposite party states that the Ext. D1 prescription issued to the patients whose tooth was extracted. Ext. D2 is issued to other patients. In this case the complainant produced the prescription slip form like Ext. D1(a). The complainant herself admitted that she had not visited the opposite party after 17.04.2001. The opposite party prescribed the medicine for 3 days to the complainant, even if the pain was not cured, she ought have visited the opposite party. But the complainant did not visit the opposite party. PW1 has deposed that “പതിനെട്ടാം തീയതിക്ക് ശേഷം ആ doctor-ടെ അടുത്ത് പോയിട്ടില്ല.” It is pertinent to note that, a patient with severe tooth ache would never tolerate the same for a period of one month without consulting a doctor. In this case the complainant visited the Dental College for treatment only on 14.05.2001 i.e; after one month. From this we suspect that whether the complainant obtained treatment from Dental College for the same complaint. At the time of cross examination she stated that “കുറെ പല്ലുകള് കേടു വന്നതായിരുന്നു. പല്ലു പുളിപ്പും വേദനയും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു”. From this deposition we can understand that she has treated for complaints for some other teeth. And moreover the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the opposite party had extracted the teeth of the complainant. If the opposite party had extracted the teeth he would have definitely noted the same in the prescription slip. In this case the opposite party denied the extraction of teeth of the complainant. Hence the burden is upon the complainant to prove that contention. But the complainant has failed to establish her case beyond doubt. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of November 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 419/2001
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Kamalamma
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Prescription slip issued by opposite party to complainant on
17.04.2001
P2 - Treatment record of Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram.
P3 - Payment receipt of coupon issued by Hospital Development
Society.
P4 - Cash bill of medicines for an amount of Rs. 105.25.
P5 - Tourist taxi receipts for the payment of taxi charge from
Kattakkada to Medical College.
P6 - Copy of advocate notice dated 24.05.2001 issued by
complainant to opposite party.
P7 - Reply notice.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
DW1 - Dr. K. Sanal Kumar
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
D1 - Opposite party's prescription slip.
D1(a) - Another type of prescription slip without instructions.
D2 - Advocate notice dated 29.06.2001.
D3 - Acknowledgement card and postal receipts.
PRESIDENT
jb
