West Bengal

Bankura

CC/104/2013

Smt. Roma Dhodray - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Paresh Nath Chakraborty - Opp.Party(s)

Ananda Mohan Mandal

13 Dec 2023

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 104/2013

          Date of Filing: 25/11/2013

                                                        

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Ld. Advocate Ananda Mohan Mondal

For the O.P.:  Ld. Advocate Amitava Ghosh

 

Complainant  

Smt. Roma Dhodray, w/o Mr. Abhay Dhodray, Khatra, Bankura

Opposite Party 

Dr. Paresh Nath Chakraborty, BDS 1st Class, having his chamber Dental World at Katjuridanga, Bankura Opposite SBI, Bankura

 

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

 

Order No.70

Dated:13-12-2023

Complainant files hazira through Advocate.

No step is taken by the O.P.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from the Complainant the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that she visited and consulted O.P./Dr. on different occasions during the Month of March, 2013 with the complain of continuous feeling of pain in her upper molar teeth (wrongly described as pre-molar teeth in the petition of complaint and subsequently brought to the notice of the Commission by petition dated: 20/09/2017)  and ultimately O.P. / Dr. took decision for Root Canal Therapy (RCT) of the affected lower molar teeth and did so in three sittings after adding crown on the upper molar teeth and assured the Complainant that the sensational pain will be removed after RCT but she was not relieved of her pain in the said  teeth even after complete RCT. Being frustrated and disappointed she visited Dr. Pallab Mondal on 15/05/2013 who first advised to have an IOPA x’ray on affected upper molar teeth and accordingly IOPA X’ray  was done on18/05/2013 which reveals improper RCT as opined by said Dr.  Pallab Mondal in his prescription dated: 18/05/2013. Further RCT was risky as per opinion of Dr. Pallab Mondal and accordingly the affected both molar teeth were extracted to give complete relief to the Complainant. The Complainant has incurred a huge medical expenses and sufferings for wrong treatment by the O.P./Dr. and as such she has approached this Commission for adequate compensation.                                   

                                                                                                                                                                                      Contd……p/2

Page: 2

O.P. / Dr. contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegations made in the petition of complaint contending inter alia that the report of the Radiologist dated: 18/05/2013 with the comment of improper RCT is not an evidence of medical negligence as it is not acceptable in medical jurisprudence. Thus the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.

                                                                                        -: Decision with reasons: -

Having regard to the facts of the case, submission, contention and documents from both sides the Commission finds that admittedly RCT was done by O.P. / Dr. but the Complainant was not comfortable with such RCT as she had a persistent feeling of pain in her affected teeth. Ultimately she got relief by extraction of both the molar teeth.

RCT is a common treatment in the field of dentistry and the success rate is 99% but in this case RCT was not successful as the victim patient experienced tremendous pain after RCT.

Now the question is whether the O.P./Dr. is to blame for such post RCT reaction. IOPA x’ray report dated: 18/05/2013 (vide Annexure-3/A) submitted by consultant Radiologist Dr. Bimal Chandra Roy, MBBS,DMRD clearly shows  that the RCT done was improper. X’ray report is the best evidence for confirmation of this fact and upon relying on this X’ray report Dr. Pallab Mondal who subsequently treated the Complainant has opined so in his prescription dated: 18/05/2013.

O.P. in his written version has called in question the authority and propriety of said X’ray report as the concerned Radiologist cannot have any experience of dental treatment.

It is now a settled proposition of law that in medical negligence case a treating Doctor is medically liable if he has fallen short of a standard reasonable medical care, skill and diligence. In RCT treatment four stages are involved : 1)Removing the pulp 2) Cleaning and filling the root canal 2) Sealing and fixing the tooth and 4) Adding a crown and all said four stages require due medical care, skill and diligence to make the operation a success and a dentist like the O.P. is expected to possess all such qualities. X’ray report of the Radiologist though not an expert opinion but is a good medical evidence which can be safely relied to decide the medical negligence case. The findings in the X’ray report that the RCT is improper speaks good for itself that the O.P./Dr. was lacking due medical care, skill and diligence in performing RCT for dental treatment of the Complainant.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd……p/3

Page: 3

As contended by the O.P. / Dr. that the Radiologist has no authority to express such findings regarding RCT treatment is totally mis-conceived as it is the duty of the Radiologist with requisite qualifications to give the comment and findings on the basis of Radiological observations. The O.P. / Dr. may ask a question to himself that if RCT was properly done the Complainant would not suffer the extraction of her both molar tooth and tremendous pain after such RCT.

The Commission is therefore of the view that the O.P. / Dr. is medically negligent in the dental treatment of the Complainant by performing improper RCT producing unbearable pain and mental agony, ultimate losing of her valuable teeth and is accordingly inclined to assess the compensation at Rs.50,000/-

 

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. but without cost.

O.P. / Dr. is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for medical negligence within a month from this date in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

 ____________________                 _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT             HON’BLE MEMBER  

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.