IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC /103/2013.

 Date of Filing:   20.08.2013.                                                                   Date of Final Order: 09.10.2015.

Complainant: Sailen Kumar Bhadra, S/O Late Ajit Kumar Bhadra, of Kandi. S.D Hospital,

                        Krishna Bagan Road, Kandi Bazar, P.S. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad.

-Vs-

Opposite Party: Dr. Palash Chakravorty(Dental Surgeon), K.K. Banerjee Road,

   P.O.& P.S. Berhampore, Dist. Murshidabad.

                       Present:                             

                                         Sri Samaresh Kumar Mitra ……………………..Member.           

                                                                        Smt. Pranati Ali ……….……………….……………. Member

FINAL ORDER

 Smt. Pranati Ali, Presiding Member.

The fact of the consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986, is that the complainant/Sailen Kumar Bhadra visited the OP/dr. Palash Chakravorty for recovery from his toothache problem on 19.11.2011. According to the complainant, instead of treatment on one tooth on upper jaw, the OP culled all the teeth of both jaws without his consent as well as charged Rs.15,000/- for the steel cover of the teeth as advance. The complainant had no option. So he paid the said amount. Thereafter, the complainant consulted with other Dental Doctor, who stated that it was not necessary to cut the teeth. So it is a gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the complainant is bound to come to this Forum for proper redress.

On the other hand, the OP entered into this case by filing written version, where he denied all the allegations raised in the complaint against him. He also stated that the complainant was examined and found problem in the 2^nd Premolar Tooth of Upper Right Jaw. It is also found that there was a history of R.C.T done outside and doubted a failure of such. The OP advised for X-ray of 2^nd Premolar along with advice for medicine like Antibiotic and Pain Killer with antacid. The OP further stated that there was no scope of demand of Rs.15,000/- , rather for examination he charged Rs.70/- only, side by side there was no situation to cut the teeth of the complainant, and /or if there he cut of all the teeth then how the complainant spend almost 2 years without taking food comfortably. So, all those allegations by the complainant are false and very harmful for the OP’s reputation. It proved that the OP had no deficiency in service. So he prayed for rejection of the case with cost.

It appears from the record that the complainant is absent without steps more than 5 consecutive dates since 25.03.2015 and even no show cause has been filed by him,  which is evident that the complainant is not so serious, rather reluctant about the case.

In this circumstance, our considered view is that the complainant is not interested to proceed with the case, which is also evident in the submitted documents by the complainant; these are very less in number and not justified the allegations. So, the complainant is not eligible to get relief as he prayed for.

Hence,

Ordered

that the Consumer Complaint No. 103/2013 be and the same is hereby dismissed due to non-prosecution without any order as to cost.                                 

Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post  to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.