Date of Filing : 09/12/2022
Date of Judgement : 24/09/2024
Sri Manish Deb, Hon’ble Member
The Fact Of the case is that the Complainant is the daughter of the Late Radhika Ranjan Ray living permanently at the 61/1 Dhakuria Station Road, Kolkata 700031, P.S. Lake, P.O.Dhakuria South 24 Pgs aged 73 years retired professor.
The complainant went to Dr. Narayan Chandra Saha, a Dentist for crowning of the complainant’s lower right No.4,5,6 teeth. She went there unaware that Doctor was only a self declared dentist without any registration number even. Doctor told complainant that one bridge involving 4,5,6,7 teeth would be proper for her and it would cost to her of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant arranged the said amount for treatment.
As per instruction of opposite party payments were made by complainant in installments e.g. Rs.2000/- + Rs.8,000/- + Rs.10,000/- total of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the opposite party .
The OP Doctor delivered & fitted the bridge of teeth on 19.11.2018 to the complainant and produced the receipt.
The said Dentist sent a person to fit it in the mouth of complainant. The bridge was very badly made for fitting it forcibly. The complainant got badly hurt. The Doctor tried forcibly to fit it in the mouth of complainant and it was painful.
The complainant had pain always. The bridge came out after two months. It harmed complainant immensely – physically and mentally.
The Doctor’s Chamber was very poor with a broken dental chair, filthy, dirty basin, no water supply, no assistant. Complainant’s two teeth were damaged badly due to manual force applied.
Under that circumstance, complainant repeatedly phoned opposite party explaining the problems created by him as his work was grossly defective and dissatisfactory.
Finding on other alternative the complainant has filed this complain case before this commission for relives.
Complainant prays for directions upon the opposite party to :
- Refund of Rs.20,000/-.
- Interest @20% p.a. till the final refund/disposal of the case.
- Rs.6,000/- for harassment, practicing unfair trade business for causing immense mental agony,
- Litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The Opposite Party did not appear in the case inspite of good service upon OP. He did not file any written version and Evidence in the case. Thus the case has been heard exparte; even he did not participate in the case at the time of argument. The complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, Document and also filed Brief Note of Argument.
The complainant filed Affidavit-in-Chief, Documents and also Brief note of Argument, also submitted verbally before this commission that there is no scope to compromise with health and treatment.
All efforts being futile, the complainant files this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP and praying for the relief
OP has contested the case not filed written version and evidence in the case . The complainant filed evidence. BNA filed by complainant in course of the proceedings.
POINTS TO BE NOTED
Whether the complainant is entitled to relief.
FINDINGS
We have applied our mind and meticulously gone through the materials on record together with the points raised by the parties during arguments.
It is observed that the complainant The complainant went to opposite party a Dentist for crowning of the complainant’s lower right No.4,5,6 teeth , Doctor told complainant that one bridge involving 4,5,6,7 teeth would be proper and it would cost to her of Rs.20,000/-. Hence it was arranged the said amount by complaint
As per Opposite Party’s instruction, payments were made in installments e.g. Rs.2000/- + Rs.8,000/- + Rs.10,000/- totaling of Rs.20,000/-
The OP Doctor delivered the bridge of teeth on 19.11.2018 to the complainant and produced the receipt.
The said Dentist sent a person to fit it in the mouth of complainant. The bridge was very badly made for fitting it forcibly. The complainant got badly hurt. The Doctor tried forcibly to fit it on and on, it was painful.
The complainant had pains always. The bridge came out after two months. It harmed complainant immensely – physically and mentally.
The Doctor’s Chamber was very poor with a broken dental chair, filthy, dirty basin, no water supply, no assistant. Complainant’s two teeth were damaged badly due to manual force applied.
Thus considering the date of diagnosis of ailment of the complainant and Infrastructure of the op’s for medical treatment as dentist , above all responsibility and liability of a doctor towards a patient , and taking into consideration of the document as a whole. The OP has failed to justify grievances of the complainant.
Now it is pertinent to consider the gravity of mental agony and harassment to the complainant caused by the deficiency in service by the OP
We feel that acts and omissions on behalf of the OP reflect an unambiguous character of unfair trade practice adopted by the OP with the intent/motive of deceiving the complainant and it needless to mention, to what extent such act on the part of OP created mental agony and harassment towards the complainant. Since the OPs did not contest, the evidence and documents adduced by the complainant remains unchallenged.
In our opinion, the complainants have successfully proved her case and therefore eligible to get relief(s).
Hence the complainant is found eligible for refund of Rs.20,000/-. along with the interest in lieu of compensation @9% per annum from the date of filing the claim to the OP up to the date of actual payment and eligible for Rs.6,000/- for harassment, practicing unfair trade business for causing immense mental agony and Litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- from the Opposite party.
Hence it is
ORDERED
CC/675/2022 is allowed against Opposite Party.
That the OP shall Refund of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant along with the interest @9% p.a. payable from the period for the date of submission of claims by the complainant to the OP till the date of actual payment. OP is also directed to pay Rs.6,000/- for harassment, practicing unfair trade business for causing immense mental agony and Litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
All the above payments shall be made by the OP to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to take necessary step in accordance with law.
Dictated and corrected by
Member
