PER HON’BLE MS.DR.RICHA BANSOD, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed under section 35 of the consumer protection act 2019. Complainant is a resident of Thane of the age 81 years. The opposite party is a dental surgeon by profession practicing at Shree Dental Clinic at Thane.

The facts of the complaint are as follows;

1.       The complaint stated that on 13th April 2020, his wife and he visited the opponent’s dental clinic to avail of dentures treatment from the opponent. After examination, the complaint was advised removal of 4 damaged teeth and replacement of 8 missing teeth. The opponent quoted an expense of rupees 15000 for the entire dental treatment.  The opponent also issued a prescription and the receipt for the payment of Rs.5000/- dated 15^th April 2020 and Rs.10,000/- dated 28^th April 2020 received from the complainant.

Complainant states that his wife Mrs Shilpa Gadre started her treatment on 22^nd April 2020 and the opposite party advised her to install artificial teeth on lower jaw. The opposite party also instructed to deposit Rs.10,000/- against the dental treatment.  The opponent quoted the payment of Rs.29,000/- on the prescription dated 22^nd April 2020.   Complainant states that after the lockdown, he visited the clinic of the opposite party on 15^th  April 2021, and as per the opponents instruction, deposited Rs.5000/- on 15^th  April 2021 and subsequently Rs.10,000/- on 20^th April 2021 as full and final cost of treatment.  The complainant was informed by the opponents that it was mandatory to take the vaccine before starting then the treatment. The complainant's wife expired on 30th April 2021. The complainant informed the opposite party and was assured that the said amount would be adjusted against his treatment. Hence accordingly complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- with opposite party in advance. Complainant states that he completed both his vaccinations on 9th November 2021 and visited the opponent for further treatment. He was charged additional Rs.300/- and was informed to deposit Rs.29,000/- again for the treatment.  On informing the opposite party that he had already deposit Rs.25,000/- the complainant was informed that the said deposit had been forfeited due to delayed treatment.   Complainant states that the opposite party has neither proceeded nor completed his treatment even after receiving of Rs.25,000/- for the dental treatment of the complainant. The complaint has sent Legal Notice to the opponent on 15^th December 2021. The complainant prays to hold and declare the opposite party to be guilty of deficiency in service and Unfair Trade Practice as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 30,000/- deposited to the opposite party towards fees.   To direct opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- lakh compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience.   To direct the opposite party to pay the cost of Rs.25,000/- as legal and incidental expense.  

The complaint filed a copy of the prescription dated 13^th April 2020, copy of prescription dated 22^nd April 2020, copy of prescription dated 9^th November 2021, copy of prescription dated 10th November 2021, a copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant and the copy of the reply dated 15th January 2022 sent by the opposite party along with the complaint.

2.       The complaint was admitted, and notice was issued to the opponents. The opponents appeared and filed their written version.

3.       The opponent denied the contention of the complainant. The opponent denied that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The opponent stated that the complainant had nowhere stated that he is the legal heir of late Shrimati Shilpa Gandre. The opponent says that they had estimated Rs.29,000/- each towards medical treatment amounting to a total of Rs.58000/-. The opposite party gave a concession to the complainant, and that amount to be paid was Rs. 45,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.15000/- in the month of April 2020.   The opponent told the complainant to deposit some amount of remaining fees in May 2020 for the measurement of dentures for the complainant’s wife. The opposite party started treatment and took measurements for the Complainants wife sending it to the laboratory for making artificial teeth for complainant and his wife where the charges were the total amount of Rs.27000/-. The opposite party states that the complainant only deposited Rs.15000/-, whereas the opponent incurred expenses of Rs. 27000/-. The opponent also contend that they did not compel any patient to take vaccination before visiting the dental clinic. Opponent filed copy of opponent’s diary page with the entry of the complainant and the complainant’s wife.  Opponent filed a copy of the bill of Rs.12000/-  issued by Shree Ganesh Dental Lab dated 7^th May 2020 as well as a bill of Rs.15000/- issued by Shree Ganesh Dental Lab dated 7^th May 2020.

4. The complainant and opponent filed affidavit of evidence and written notes of argument.

5. We perused the complaint, and the documents filed the evidence filed and the written notes of argument.  Heard oral arguments.

This commission answers the points with the reasons given below;

REASONS

6.As to point No.1:-      The complainant and the opposite party reside and work in Thane, respectively. Therefore, the complaint is within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission.

7.As to point No. 2:-,    It is an admitted fact that the complainant has been receiving treatment from the opposite party. The complainant and his wife received dental treatment from the opponent since April 2020. The complainant has paid Rs. 25000/- to the opposite party in advance against his dental treatment as per clause-5 of the complaint. The opposite party did not complete the treatment after the receipt of Rs.25000/- from the complainant. The receipt appears to be in the form of a prescription, and no clear receipt has been provided to the complainant. No proper records have been provided by the opponent regarding the balance to be paid by the complainant. The claim of the opponent saying that the opponent incurred the expense of Rs. 27000/- towards laboratory bills is also not tenable as there is no evidence of the complainant being called to complete the treatment The complainant had informed the opponent that his wife was deceased in April 2021. Therefore, the fitting of dentures was impossible after the event. There is no evidence of negligence in treatment. However, the refusal to complete the treatment of the complainant holds the opponent in deficiency in service.

8.As to point No.3:-                In view of point number 2 partly in affirmative we order that the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.25000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint that is 4th April 2022 still realisation of the said amount along with Rs.10000/- as cost therefore answer of point number 3 partly in affirmative be passed the following order.

FINAL ORDER

1. The consumer complaint No.CC/150/2022 is partly allowed

2. The opposite party is directed to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint that is 4^th April 2022 tell the realisation of the amount to the complainant.

3. The opposite party is directed to the pay Rs.10000/- towards costs to the complainant

4. The opponent is direct to comply with the aforesaid order within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order.

5. The member sets shall be returned to the complainant. In case the complainant fails to collect the said sets within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, the same may be destroyed.