Haryana

Karnal

237/2013

Kabal Singh S/o Jogga Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Shikha Atreja, Dental Surgeon, B.D.S. M.D.S., Dental Suregon & Pedodontist Chid Central Care Sp - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. R.S. Chauhan

04 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No. 237  of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.: 16.05.2013

                                                          Date of decision: 4.12.2015

 

Kabal Singh son of Sh.Jogga Singh resident of village Thari tehsil Assandh district Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

 

1.Dr.Shikha Atreja, Dental Surgeon, BDS, MDS (PGI Rohtak)Dental Surgeon and Pedodontist Child Central Care Specialist Regd.No.1560-A, Haryana Chaudhary Multispecialty Dental Hospital 43, Ist Floor, Nehru Palace, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

 

2. The United Insurance Company, GT Road, Karnal near Bus stand, Karnal through its Divisional Manager, Karnal.

                                                                  …..Opposite  Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.R.S.Chauhan   Advocate for the complainant.,

                    Sh.Vishal Goel  Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.

Sh.Y.P.Arora, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2.               

ORDER:

 

                   This complaint has been  filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that he  got treatment of his  teeth  from the  Opposite Party ( in short OP) no.1.He visited the  clinic thrice for the purposes of treatment and medicines were prescribed to him.   He started feeling pain in his teeth, which were treated.   On 1.5.2013  at 11.ooAM,  he visited the clinic of OP  No.1 and requested to provide him better treatment, but the OP no.1 insulted  and humiliated him in the presence of  other patients, asked him to get out and threatened in abusive language.  Thereafter, he got checked teeth from other Dental surgeon, who told that OP  No.1 had not provided him proper treatment and the  medicines  which were prescribed, were not fit and proper. He was also told that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be required for the proper treatment of his teeth.  In this way, he suffered mental agony and sufferings and harassment on account of act and conduct of OP No.1.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops.  OP No.1 put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant on various grounds. Objections have been raised that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant had not obtained any expert opinion: that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has no where mentioned any deficiency on the part of the OP No.1; that this Forum has no jurisdiction as the complainant has raised civil dispute and that the  complaint is misconceived and bundle of lies and has been filed within malafide  and ulterior motive to harass  the OP  No.1 and illegally extract money from her. 

 

                    On merits, it has been submitted that complainant approached the OP No.1 for treatment of his teeth and on examination it was found that problem was a routine case of scaling and root canal. The scaling of teeth of the complainant was completed in three visits and he was being treated for routine canal for one of his teeth which was planned to be completed on the fourth visit. The complainant came to the hospital on 1.5.2013 and he was humbly  asked to wait outside and allow the OP No.1 to finish the ongoing procedure of the patient but the complainant neither bothered for the ongoing patient nor for the reputation of OP No.1 and banged clinic doors and left clinic without getting treatment. Thereafter, the complainant never approached the OP No.1 There was no deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1.The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

 

3.                 The OP No.2 who was impleaded party lateron, also filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that this Forum has no  jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint; that the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint; that complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own acts and conduct and that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP No.1.

 

                    On merits, it has been submitted that the OP No.2 has not received any information either from complainant or from Op No.1. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen against the OP No.2. The complainant is not entitled for any claim. The other allegations made in the complaint have not been admitted.

 

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C6 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 have been tendered.

 

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the Ops,  affidavit of Dr.Sikha Atreja Ex.OW1/A and affidavit of Sh.S.S.Vasudeva  Deputy Manager Ex.OP2/A and documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

 

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and  the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

 

7.                Every complaint has to succeed on the strength of its own merits. In the case of medical negligence specific allegations regarding negligence on the part of the doctors have to be alleged and proved and onus of proof lies on the complainant. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he or she performs duties with reasonable skill and competence. In the context, as to what constitutes medical negligence, reference may be made to Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases  Jacob Mathew  Versus State of  Punjab  2005(6) SCC 1, and  Martin F D’Souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq, I(2009) CPJ 32(SC) and the orders passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in cases Rajiv Navath Versus Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib and others in revision petition No.1311 of 2013, Bolam Vs.Frien Hospital Management Committee (1957)1 WLR 582,S.N.Singh(DR) Versus Devendra Singh and another III(2011)CPJ 390 (NC),  C.P.Sreekumar (Dr.)MS(Ortho) Vs.S.Ramanujam II(2009)CPJ 48 (SC) = 2009(7) SCC 130 and Mohd.Abrar Versus Dr.Ashok Desai and others 2011 CTJ 613 (CP)(NCDRC).

 

8.                In the instant case, the complainant had visited the clinic of Opposite Party No.1 for scaling    of his teeth and root canal of one of his teeth. Three sittings had taken place for scaling and root canal. The complainant visited the clinic on 1.5.2013 for 4^th sitting of the root canal treatment. As per allegations of the complainant, the  OP No.1 did not attend him, though he was having pain in his teeth and he was insulted, humiliated, threatened and was asked to get out of the clinic.

 

                   On the other hand, OP No.1 in written statement submitted that complainant did not want to wait for completion of ongoing procedure of a patient and banged clinic doors and left the clinic without getting treatment.

 

9.                It is important to point out that in the entire complaint, the complainant has not alleged that there was negligence on the part of OP No.1 or deficiency in services in any manner. In the complaint it has been alleged that he got checked his  teeth from Dental Surgeon who told him that he was not  treated properly by OP No.1, but no such evidence worth the name has been produced regarding opinion of any dental surgeon  that there was any negligence in treatment of the complainant by the OP No.1. As per allegations of the complainant he was insulted, humiliated, threatened and asked to go out by the OP No.1 in the presence of other patients sitting in the clinic. Such allegations of the complainant cannot be termed as medical negligence or deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1 by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, there was no medical negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

 

10.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 04.12.2015.                                                                       

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.R.S.Chauhan   Advocate for the complainant.,

                    Sh.Vishal Goel  Advocate for the OP No.1.

Sh.Y.P.Arora, Advocate for OP No.2.                 

 

 

                    Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated: 04.12.2015.                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma )       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.