BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.98/12.

Date of instt.: 05.03.2012. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 11.05.2015.

Ram Kumar (since deceased) son of Sh. Kanhiya, now represented by a) Smt. Bimla (widow) (b) Surender (son) (c) Balinder (son) (d) Rajesh (son) (e) Salindro (daughter) of Sh. Ram Kumar, residents of Village Khurana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainants.    

                                        Versus

Dr. Satyawan Dhanda son of Unknown, Clinic/resident of Village Khurana (near Khera), Tehsil and District Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Pawan Midha, Advocate for complainants.

Sh. Dalbir Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he was having a pain in his molar teeth of right upper-side of his mouth and he contacted with the Op for treatment in the month of November, 2011.  It is alleged that the Op represented himself a specialist as Dentist and after examination of the complainant extracted the molar teeth of the complainant and gave assurance that the wound would be recovered within three days and also charged Rs.200/- from the complainant as treatment charges.  It is further alleged that due to providing the wrong treatment by the Op to the complainant, the complainant was having more swelling and pain in his mouth and the wounds were also increased.  It is further alleged that the complainant went to the clinic of Op on the next day and the Op prescribed some other medicines and gave the injection regularly for ten days and charged Rs.2500/- from the complainant, but the complainant did not get any relief.  It is further alleged that not getting any relief, the complainant on 29.11.2011 approached to Goyal Hospital, Kaithal for better treatment, where the concerned doctor after examination and on seeing the swelling in the mouth, referred the complainant to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment.  It is further alleged that in the month of December, 2011 the complainant went to PGI Chandigarh where the doctor of PGI Chandigarh checked the complainant and advised him for CECT Scan of his mouth and after seen the report, the doctor asked the complainant that he was suffering from Cancer disease due to this wound in his mouth.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction.    There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op never represented himself a specialist as dentist and never examined the complainant.  The respondent had friendly relation with the complainant.  The complainant told the Op that he had pain in his teeth, so, on human ground, the Op wrote the name of the medicine as he got relief from taking that medicine when he was himself suffering from tooth pain.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant was having a pain in his molar teeth of right upper-side of his mouth and he contacted with the Op for treatment in the month of November, 2011.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the Op represented himself a specialist as Dentist and after examination of the complainant extracted the molar teeth of the complainant.  The complainants contended that they have paid Rs.200/- but failed to produce any receipt of the same on case file.  So, the complainants do not cover under the definition of consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Ld. Counsel for the Op vehemently contends that the Op never represented himself a specialist as dentist and never examined the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the Op has also tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Satawan (Ex.RW1/A) as-well-as affidavits of  Sh. Shamsher Singh son of Sh. Lal Singh, r/o Village Khurana (Ex.RW2/A), Sh. Surjeet son of Sh. Fateh Singh, r/o Village Khurana (Ex.RW3/A) and Sh. Karamveer son of Sh. Phoola, r/o Village Khurana (Ex.RW4/A).  In all the affidavits, the villagers have mentioned that the complainant Ram Kumar (since deceased) had filed the false complaint against the Op.  The Op has not done any kind of practice as a doctor and he has not extracted the molar teeth of complainant Ram Kumar (since deceased).  The Op has not given any kind of treatment to the complainant Ram Kumar.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainants have failed to prove any expert evidence which could prove that the complainant Ram Kumar (since deceaded) had taken any kind of treatment from the Op.  The authorities submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant reported as N.K.Kohli Vs. Bajaj Nursing Home & others, 2000(2) CPJ page 308 (Madya Pradesh State Commission); Deepak Gokaran Vs. Chairman, M.G.S.C.H. Trust & others, 2003(1) CPJ page 518 (Delhi State Commission) and Madaan Surgical & Maternity Hospital & others Vs. Smt. Santosh & Others, 2014(2) CLT page 318 (NC) are not applicable to the present case because the facts of these authorities are almost different from the present case. 

7.     It is very important to mention here that the complainant Ram Kumar (since deceased) was smoking bidi for 10-15 years and quit around few months back.  This was clearly mentioned by the doctors from P.G.I. Chandigarh (Ex.C18).  In his out patient card in previous history, the complainant himself mentioned that he was chain bidi smoker and had ulcer in oral cavity.  The complainant was clinically diagnosed as a case of cancer maxilla with critical stage T4 NO MO (stage-IV) which is locally advanced stage of cancer.  Growth was crossing mid line, destroying adjacent bones and pterygold muscles.  Floor of right orbit was also destroyed, orbital fat was also involved.  So, we are of the considered view that Ram Kumar died of cancer and the cancer was not due to tooth extraction. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

8.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.11.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.