….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: None for the Complainant.
Sh. Kanwar Opinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the last dental bridge implant happened in March 12th of 2020. Since his retirement in 2003, he has been visiting every year his motherland India for about 6 weeks. It was on such a visit in March 2018 when his tooth-bridge needed replacement. Dr. Dewan advised him to have it using two implants and suggested the cost of Rs.64,000/- by cheque, he asked to be payable in his wife’s name plus X-Ray and other cash charges about Rs.1500/-. He decided to put the 4 Crown bridge using two implants adjacent to each other and commenting the other end on top of an existing tooth. On his return to UK, besides not chewing on that side of the jaw, the bridge got loose after three months. When contacted Dr. Dewan, he told him that the plastic crowns were to be removed anyway, he needs to replace the bridge with stone crowns on his next visit to India, which he did in March 2019. Again the bridge broke in the middle after five months besides avoiding to chew any hard food. On m complaint, he advised to see him next year and promised to replace it. So, it was in March 2020, when he paid Dewan Clinic the required visit. What he did was to take out the next middle section implant and replaced the bridge resting one on the end implant and the other end as usual cemented on top of the tooth. This new bridge technique failed as it broke into two pieces, in September the same year. It was then when I started to doubt whether he was really qualified in implantology. The OP again promised to correct it on his next visit to India. However, the bridge having failed three times, he was not very confident that it would be any better the next time. As it was not possible to visit India in 2021 because of Covid-19 pandemic. So, he decided to replace it with a denture by a dentist in UK which cost him 500 (equivalent to Rs.50,000/-). The total claim comes to Rs.64,000/- (implants) + Rs.1500/- (x Rays & Reception fees) + Rs.10,000/- for Taxi Fares + Rs.50,000/- (Denture Replacement) + Compensation for all the inconvenience caused and as such, the present complaint filed.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable, since the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from the Commission and has not approached the Commission with clean hands. It is further averred that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file the present complaint against the answering OP. It is further averred that the present false and frivolous complaint has been filed on the basis of false, vague and evasive assertions. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy and compensatory costs. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and same has not been properly verified as required under law. It is further averred that the complaint is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, untenable and devoid of any merit. The complainant has approached the Commission with soiled hands and has made the complaint in order to raise premeditated, false and frivolous dispute to harass the answering OP. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable, it is gross misuse of process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the answering OP to submit to the unreasonable and unethical demands of the complainant. On merits, the factum with regard to taking treatment of teeth by the complainant from the OP is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
4. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the counsel for the complainant very minutely.
6. It is admitted and proved by the complainant that two implants with over head four crown bridge were put as a dental treatment of the complainant. It is also admitted that the complainant made the payment of Rs.64,000/- in the name of the wife of the OP. The account statement has been proved by the complainant Ex.C-2, which shows that the amount of Rs.64,000/- was paid by the complainant. The complainant has alleged that after three months of the treatment when he returned to UK, as he is NRI, the bridge got loose. He contacted the OP, who told him that the plastic crowns are to be removed and to be replaced with the stone crowns. This fact has been admitted by the OP that the complainant was to be given implants with immediate Acrylic Fused to metal bridge and he was advised not to use that side for three months and after three months, he will be given be a permanent bridge of porcelain fused to metal. It is also admitted by the OP that Acrylic Bridge was removed in March, 2019 and was replaced by porcelain fused to metal crown. The complainant has alleged that again after five months, the bridge broke in the middle despite having full precautions to chew any hard food. When he contacted the OP, he promised to replace it. The complainant visited OP in March, 2020 and the OP replaced the bridge resting one and on the end implant and the other end as usual cemented on the top of the tooth. The OP has alleged that the complainant was advised for a new implant at 34 region and new bridge, but the complainant refused to spend money on the new implant and insisted to get it done with the earlier fee paid by him. It is admitted by the OP that the bridge was replaced by the OP free of cost and he was advised not to chew hard and sticky food.
7. The complainant has proved on record the photographs of his broken bridges Ex.-3 & Ex.C-4. He has proved on record the emails sent by the complainant Ex.6 and has proved also the reply by the OP. The complainant has proved on record the certificate of the doctor from UK Ex.7 vide which the denture of the complainant was replaced by a Dentist in UK.
8. From the above said contentions and the documents proved on record by both the parties, it is not disputed that the OP is a qualified doctor and he has proved on record his degrees and certificates of Merit and certificates of attending the seminars etc. Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-10. Though, he is a qualified doctor, but it is the duty of any doctor to provide the best and proper services to their patients. The facts have not been disputed that the implant was done by the doctor with temporary bridges earlier, then with permanent bridges. The complainant has alleged that he did not chew any hard food for five months, but it broke and as per the reply to the email Ex.C-6 the doctor has admitted that the bridge is broken and it has to be remade, he will do when he come to India. It is proved fact that from 2019 to till 2020 onwards there was a Covid-19 pandemic and rather it was impossible for anybody to go abroad or to come to India from Abroad. It is proved that the complainant is an NRI and resident of UK. The OP has alleged that the complainant must have tried chewing hard or stick food as the bridge broke after five months. It has been admitted by the OP that earlier he was asked not to chew hard thing for three months and after three months, the implant got loose. It cannot be imagined that a person coming from U. K. to India by spending money would not follow the instructions of the doctor and would not take precaution not to chew hard food. Again, after five months of the replacement the bridge was broken. The defence of the OP is that the complainant was suggested fixing of three implants i.e. in the region of 34, 35 and 36 with over head bridge and crown over 36, which also required repair and total cost suggested was Rs.97,000/-, but the complainant was not willing to spend that much and asked for other cheaper option which was suggested of fixing two implants with over head bridge for Rs.64,000/-, but this defence and contention is not tenable. Again it cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that a person, who is an NRI and resident of UK, would come to India by spending so much of amount and would resist for cheaper implants. It cannot be imagined that he would be asking not to fix three implants for Rs.97,000/- and would opt for two implants for Rs.64,000/-. After spending so much amount for coming to India no person would compromise with his health and would avoid payment of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.97,000- Rs.64,000/-) more. Even otherwise, if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that he opted for cheaper option then, is it not the duty of the OP to fix proper implants? This defence is against the OP himself as if the person spends Rs.64000/-, it does not mean that the implants of lower quality or inferior quality be fixed, which would not work even for three months. Instead of three implants, two implants were fixed, but it does not mean that those two implants would loose their grip after three months or would break after five months. This clearly shows the unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP.
9. The contention of the OP is that the complainant himself has given the consent form and has signed the same. He has proved on record the consent form Ex.OP-11. Perusal of Ex.OP-11 shows that this is a printed performa in which it has been written that there is no guarantee or assurance as to the result of procedure has been acknowledged by him and he will not claim any compensation in case of any failure. Only the name of the patient has been filled in. The OP has produced on record number of consent forms, which are Ex.OP-12 to Ex.OP-21. All these are printed proforma sand only the name of the patients has been filled in and the same has been signed by the patients. Again even if it is assumed that he had given consent regarding the guarantee or assurance of the result of the procedure, but at the same time, it is also proved that the OP admitted to replace the broken bridge when he comes to India. He replaced the bridges also, which also did not work. Consent was given regarding the bridges implants fixed earlier, but thereafter when the same were replaced, there is no consent form. So, it is the duty of the doctor to provide good services to the consumer to his satisfaction and make the patients (consumer) aware about the consequences of the treatment or putting the implants of any type. The contention of the OP that he must have chewed harder food, but again it cannot be presumed that a person who has spent so much amount for fixing the implants would chew hard food knowing fully well that it may cause harm to his teeth. So, the complainant has proved on record the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of the of the OP and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.
10. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OP is directed to pay Rs.64,000/- which was spent on implants of the teeth, to the complainant. Further, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
11. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
17.04.2023 Member Member President
