DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/206

Date of Institution : 27.03.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 21.06.2022

Charanjit Kaur W/o S. Harpreet Singh R/o H. No. 21, Baba Budha Ji Avenue, GT Road, Amritsar. …Complainant

Versus

1. Dr. SP Arora.

2. Dr. Sachin Arora

Both residents of Clinic-9, SCF, Anand Avenue, Resi 38, Anand Avenue, Amritsar. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint U/S 9, 10 and 11 of The Consumer Protection Act

Present: Sh. BS Rajput Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Vijayant Khanna Adv counsel for the opposite parties.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Consumer Protection Act against Dr. SP Arora and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant reached the dental clinic of the opposite parties due to severe pain in the tooth of the complainant and opposite parties provided medical treatment to the complainant from 16.1.2017 to 31.1.2017. The opposite party charged Rs. 2,500/- for providing route canal treatment from the complainant and assured her that the complainant shall not suffer from pain in the RCT treated tooth. After getting RCT treatment the complainant suffered same problem as it was before conducting RCT treatment. Due to severe pain in her same tooth she consult other doctor namely Dr. Gursharan Singh Sadana who conducted X-ray of her tooth and after seeing the X-ray it was ascertained that tooth treated by the opposite parties through RCT has been fractured. The tooth was fractured due to negligence and inefficient service of the opposite parties. Dr. Sadana from where complainant got treatment also charged Rs. 600/- from the complainant. Other dental doctor has given estimate of Rs. 5,000/- for the treatment of same tooth which is fractured by the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as amount received by the opposite parties. 

2) To pay Rs. 5,000/- amount to be spent by the complainant for treatment of damaged caused by opposite party. 

3) To pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the complaint. 

4) To pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.

5) To pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is filed at the instance of other doctor because of trade rivalry. Neither the X-ray nor its report from the doctor concerned has seen the light of the day when the allegations to this effect are fake and unsustainable. Even proof of payments made to the concerned doctors for the X-ray is intentionally withheld. Even prescription slip of Sandana Dental Clinic is not showing of any conduction of X-ray as alleged as well as the said prescription slip is specifically not to be used for any medico legal purpose as mentioned in the said slip. 

4. On merits, it is submitted that since there are two doctors practicing at the alleged clinic it is imperative to mention the specific name of the doctor from whom she availed the services and paid. The complainant has brought on record two prescription slips one issued by Dr. Arora and another by Dr. Sadana and on perusal of prescription slip issued by Dr. Arora it is evident that she got the services for RCT of her 4th tooth in the right side upper jaw during four visits on 16, 21, 30 and 31 January 2017 when the service was completed with her complete satisfaction and there has never been any complaint thereafter. However, Dr. Sadana whose prescription slip is filed revealed that he took the X-ray of 5th tooth of the right side upper jaw and diagnosed fracture there in 31 January 2018 exactly one year after she was discharged after treatment by Dr. Arora and as such it is admitted case of the complainant herself that she did not observe any problem relating to tooth treated by either of the opposite parties. Further, in the absence of proof of consideration for service this complaint cannot be entertained and considered. The complainant failed to specify the date when the pain re-appeared and the reason as to why she did not consult again to either of the opposite parties for full one year. It can never be possible that she could have remained in pain for the tooth for such a long time and even after the alleged X-ray examination she did not seek any treatment for the alleged fracture of the tooth till this day. The X-ray is conducted on a different tooth so there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant never visited to either of the opposite parties after 31st January 2017. The complainant admitted that she has not availed any treatment for such a serious ailment of her alleged fractured tooth for a long period and still waiting for it for approval or its payment by either of the opposite parties. Lastly, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.   

5. In support of her complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice dated 16.2.2018 Ex.C-2, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-3, copy of prescription slip of Dr. Arora Dental Clinic Ex.C-4, copy of prescription slip of Sadana Dental Clinic Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties   tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. SP Arora Ex.OP-1/A and closed the evidence. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the opposite parties. 

8. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the complainant reached the dental clinic of the opposite parties due to severe pain in the tooth of the complainant and opposite parties provided medical treatment to the complainant from 16.1.2017 to 31.1.2017. The opposite party charged Rs. 2,500/- for providing RCT treatment. The complainant again suffered same problem as it was before conducting RCT treatment. The complainant approached Dr. Gursharan Singh Sadana who conducted X-ray of her tooth and after seeing the X-ray it was ascertained that tooth treated by the opposite parties through RCT has been fractured. The complainant alleged that the said tooth was fractured due to negligence and inefficient service of the opposite parties. The complainant further alleged that Dr. Sadana charged Rs. 600/- from the complainant and other dental doctor has given estimate of Rs. 5,000/- for the treatment of fractured tooth. 

9. On the other hand the opposite parties filed written version and submitted that the complainant approached the opposite parties for the tooth treatment and she got the services for RCT of her 4th tooth in the right side upper jaw during four visits on 16, 21, 30 and 31 January 2017 when the service was completed with her complete satisfaction and there has never been any complaint thereafter. The opposite parties further alleged that Dr. Sadana whose prescription slip is filed revealed that he took the X-ray of 5th tooth of the right side upper jaw and diagnosed fracture there in 31 January 2018 i.e. exactly one year after she got treatment from Dr. Arora and as such it is admitted case of the complainant herself that she did not observe any problem relating to tooth treated by the opposite parties. The opposite parties further alleged that the complainant failed to specify the date when the pain re-appeared and the reason as to why she did not consult again to either of the opposite parties for full one year. The opposite parties further mentioned in the written version that it can never be possible that she could have remained in pain in tooth for such a long time and even after the alleged X-ray examination she did not seek any treatment for the alleged fracture of the tooth till date. The complainant never visited to either of the opposite parties after 31st January 2017. 

10. On the perusal of the file and the documents produced by the complainant and the opposite parties it is established that the complainant approached the opposite parties and took the treatment of upper 4th tooth of jaw from the opposite parties and same treatment was completed on 31.1.2017. The complainant herself produced the prescription slip i.e. Ex.C-4. The complainant also produced the prescription slip of Sadana Dental Clinic in which it is clearly mentioned that the X-ray conducted by the doctor was of upper 5th tooth of jaw on 31.1.2018. From the above said documents it is clearly evident that the complainant has taken the treatment from the opposite parties was of upper 4th tooth of jaw and the X-ray was got conducted by Sadana Dental Clinic was of upper 5th tooth of jaw which is clearly different from the treated tooth. It is also established from Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 that the complainant approached the Sadana Dental Clinic after one year. The complainant has failed to prove that when the pain re-appeared and the reason as to why she did not consult again to the opposite parties for full one year. 

11. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the complainant has not produced any expert evidence vide which it established that due to carelessness, negligence and inefficient services of the opposite parties the complainant tooth got fractured. The learned counsel for the opposite parties further argued that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to harass the opposite parties, therefore, present complaint may kindly be dismissed with special costs.

12. From the above said discussion, we finds no merit in the present complaint as the complainant failed to prove her case, therefore, present complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be payable by the complainant to the opposite parties. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        21st Day of June 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member