SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

            The gist of the present case is that on 07.06.2015 the complainant came to the OP , a BDS for treatment of his teeth as he was suffering from pain. The OP examined the condition of the teeth of the complainant and advised for setting up cap on the tooth and he also gave assurance for 10 years safety. Before setting up the cap, the OP made one route cannel on 07.06.2015  and then set up the cap on 12.06.2015 and discharged the complainant from his chamber. The patient was suffering from pain and again for check up  he came to the chamber of the OP on 19.06.2015 when the OP repeated the same medicine. Thereafter the OP dressed up the cap and gave guarantee that the said cap will remain intact for 10 years more. But after three months said cap withdrew from the tooth of the complainant. Thereafter on several occasion the complainant came to the OP for same problem of pain and every time the OP prescribed medicine  and ultimately advised to attend the chamber on 05.11.2016. Thereafter for better treatment the complainant had been to the Haldia Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre on 11.04.2016 and said institute set up the said tooth and also set up cap on 12.04.2016  and now the complainant has no problem.  It is the allegation of the complainant that due to negligent and wrong treatment by the OP he had to suffer so much pain in the tooth  and had to incur a cost of Rs. 25,000/-  only by the OP without any receipt.  The complainant had to bear further cost of Rs 2000/- at the Haldia Dental Institute.

Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the OP Dentist.

 The OP Dr. Srikant Bayal contested the case by filing written version and claimed dismissal of the case on various grounds.

The specific case of the contesting OP is that the complainant/petitioner came to his chamber on 07.06.2015 for root cannel treatment of his teeth no. 8 and 7  and the OP made the root cannel treatment and explained the patient of the risk factor and advised to take medicines regularly and also asked to visit the chamber on 12.06.2015. According to the medical science as well as practice of root cannel treatment at least 4/5 sittings are necessary. On 12.06.15 the complainant visited his chamber and disgustedly disclosed that he did not take the medicines due to its ill taste and flavor. The OP was very much annoyed at such childish behavior of the complainant but altered the medicines and asked to come again on 19.06.2015.  The complainant did not turn up on 19.06.15 and suddenly came on 20.09.15 and asked him to fix a crown.  The OP again made the filing  and asked the patient to follow the medicines strictly and to visit on the next date.  On 21.09.15 he came  to the chamber of the OP and disclosed that he did not follow the directions of the OP. he also asked the OP to change the medicines which the OP changed. But the clever petitioner  made a male practice by inserting   the digit 10 in place of 9 in the prescription. The crown was fixed on 21.09.2015. the patient was asked to visit after two months on 05.11.2015 after continuing the medicines properly.  He came on 05.11.2015 and informed that he had no problem. So, the complainant was asked to visit the chamber of the OP after one year on 05.11.2016. Only after the documents filed in this case,  the OP came to know that the complainant had put the crown on his tooth No. 7 from Haldia Institute of  Dental Science and Research Centre on 12.04.2016 at cost of Rs. 300/- and he is fine now.

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The points require discussion are whether the case is maintainable and whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs  as prayed for.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version and all  the documents filed by both the parties, the examination in chief on affidavit, questionnaires of both parties  and also reply thereto filed by the parties, heard the submission of the ld advocate for the complainant as  also the OPs.

            Admittedly  the complainant came to the chamber of the OP Dentist on 07.06.2015 for root cannel treatment of his teeth No. 8 and 7.  The OP explained the risk factor and made the said root cannel treatment and vividly advised the complainant to take medicines properly and visit his chamber on 12.06.2015 for follow up treatment. The OP has alleged that such treatment needs 4/5 sittings in filling and adjusting  the crown  and  on 12.06.2015 the complainant came to the chamber of the OP and disclosed that he did not take the medicines regularly for its ill taste and flavor. The OP was disappointed at such childish manner of the complainant and changed the medicine and asked to visit on 19.06.15. The complainant did not turn up on 19.06.15 and suddenly came on 20.09.15 and asked him to fix a crown.  Op advised for taking some medicines, but still on 21.09.15 the complainant disclosed that he did not take the medicines properly. The further case of the OP that the complainant forged the date in the prescription by inserting the digit ‘6’ in place of ‘9’ in the prescription.  On 05.11.2015 the complainant came again at his chamber and expressed that he had no problem. Further from the documents filed in the case, he came to learn that the complainant had crowned the tooth no. 7 from Haldia Institute of Dental Research centre at cost of Rs. 300/- on 12.04.2016 and he is fine now.

             It is the allegation of the complainant that due to negligent and wrong treatment by the OP he had to suffer so much pain in the tooth  and had to incur a cost of Rs. 25,000/-  only by the OP without any receipt.  The complainant had to bear further cost of Rs 2000/- at the Haldia Dental Institute. On the contrary, the OP has assailed such allegation by saying that the complainant did not take the medicines regularly and also did not attend the chamber of the OP for further treatment as it is necessary to attend the Dentist for at least 4/5 times for setting up crown. The further case of the OP is that the complainant has fraudulently manipulated  a date in the prescription to call sympathy of this Forum  and so  he has not come before this Forum with clean hands which deserves dismissal of the complaint case.

             Regarding the claim of the complainant of cost of Rs 25,000/- taken by the OP, the complainant did not file any document/proof, whatsoever, to show that he spent Rs. 25,000/- for the treatment by the OP.  The only document he has filed is a prescription issued by the OP Dr. Srikanta Bayal. He was questioned by the OP as to whether he has any proof to show cost of Rs 25,000/- for his treatment of teeth, the complaisant answered in the negative.  Also he was questioned in No. 3 that since 12.04.2016 he was fine to which the complainant answered that he had no problem now since that date.

            So, practically the complainant could not substantiate the allegation of paying Rs. 25,000/- to the OP for his root cannel treatment. The complainant filed a receipt issued by the the Haldia Dental Institute showing payment of Rs. 300/- for his treatment. On the contrary, in answers to question no. 2  of the complainant in questionnaires, the OP stated it was blatant lie that he had taken Rs. 25,000/- from the OP for his treatment. The OP asserted that he took Rs 500/- from the complainant for five times’ sitting  as a token fees, as this patient had come with the reference of another teacher, a former patient of the OP. The Op has not disputed this statement in the WV by placing any witness or document.

            The  most fatal allegation of the OP is that the  complainant manipulated  the date  from 20.09.2015 to 20.10.15  in the prescription.

Seen the Xerox copy of the prescription. It appears that in the reverse side of the prescription the month of the date,’20.09.15  the digit, ‘10’ has been overwritten whereas just above this overwriting, the date 20.09.2015 has been clearly written by the OP for visiting his chamber by the complainant. In this regard we find that in SL. no. 10 of the examination in-chief of the complainant he mentioned unequivocally that he attended the chamber of the OP on 20.09.2015 when the OP set up the cap and asked him to come again on  05.11.2015. But no where in the prescription there is any endorsement of the OP on dt. 20.09.2015; the same date has been manipulated by the complainant as 20.10.15. Further we find  in the same paragraph the complainant has stated that the OP asked him to attend the chamber of the OP on 05.11.2015 for further examination. But in the prescription filed by the complainant it is found that the said date 5.11.2015 has been manipulated by inserting  the digits “12”in place of “11”.  It further appears that on the same page, the date 12.06.15 has been over written as  12.09.2015 which has been averred by the Ld. Advocate for the OP.

There is no explanation from the side of the complainant as to how and why those manipulations have been made and the complainant could not refute these allegations by placing any cogent argument

            From the above discussion we find force in the argument of the ld Advocate for the OP that the complainant has not come before this Ld. Forum with clean hands. He manipulated the dates for some gain in this complaint which cannot be overlooked by this ld. Forum. This is enough for a complaint to be dismissed summarily.     

The  OP all along alleged that the  complainant did not take the medicines properly as per his prescription which may create the problems, if any, as alleged by the complainant. This version of the WV is also admitted by the complainant in the answer to the question no. 4 put by the OP. The question was  “It is fact that you did not follow  the directions given by the OP doctor properly, did not take prescribed medicines at all  and did not visit his chamber on the date fixed.” The complainant answered “Yes.”  So, no deficiency could be established against the OP doctor when the complainant admitted that he did not follow the advice of the doctor which was just and proper for relinquishing his teeth complications.

            Further it appears that the complainant is now OK and fine with regard to the complications of his teeth for which he came to the OP and so, there was practically no cause for filing this complainant which has been done by the complainant, apparently for some illegal gain.   

            In view of the aforesaid discussion we are inclined to dismiss the case with cost against the OP.

            Both the points are answered accordingly.

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/46 of 2018 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs. 1000/- U/Sec. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to be payable  by the complainant to the OP for harassing the Dentist as well as for imputation of his name and fame in the society.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.