By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

            The complainant approached the opposite party on May 2007  due to severe pain in the left mandible of the complainant.  Complainant had visited the opposite party in opposite party’s Dental clinic.  After examination opposite party had informed the complainant that a tooth in the lower jaw has to be extracted, only when the pain would subside.  The complainant agreed and opposite party had extracted tooth of the complainant from the left lower jaw of the complainant.  When complainant complained about the pain,  Opposite party had prescribed pain killers and consoled the complainant saying that it would take sometime for the pain to completely subside.  The pain continued. As it was not completely cured complainant was referred to Kozhikode Government Dental College.  Complainant alleges that because of the negligence of the opposite party the complainant had to suffer and even after the treatment in government Dental College he is not fully cured.  Due to the defective treatment of the opposite party complainant is suffering from severe pain and is not able to do any job as before.  Hence filed the petition claiming a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            Opposite party had filed a version denying all the averments in the complaint.  Opposite party admit the fact that complainant had consulted opposite party in the month of May 2007 with mobile tooth  +8   and complaint of tooth ache.  The condition of the tooth was that chronic periodontitis.  Considering  the circumstances of the disease opposite party had extracted the tooth, done curetage and sutured the site.  Antibiotics and pain killer were prescribed.  At the time of examination many of the teeth of the complainant were missing.  Removal of the tooth was necessary at that stage.  The complainant approached the opposite party again with complaint of pain. X-ray was taken.  A wide radio lucent  area was noticed in the X-ray. Antibiotics and pain killer were again given.  When the complainant visited the opposite party again with the same complaint opposite party adviced the complainant to consult at Dental College, Calicut for better management.  Opposite party did not advice the complainant to extract the ailing tooth in left mandible assuring permanent relief from pain.  Complainant had visited opposite party with mobile tooth and it was extracted because of the instruction of the complainant.  The radio lucent area shown in the X-ray also shows that the complainant had some serious problem causing pain and based on that assumption the complainant was advised for treatment in Dental College.  The oral hygiene of the complainant was very poor.  There was no negligence in the diagnosis or treatment by the opposite party.  There is no reason for the complainant to claim compensation from the opposite party.  Opposite party is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.  Complainant has filed an experiment complaint with a view to extract money from the opposite party.  Hence the petition is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.

            The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A17 were marked on complainant’s side.  Opposite party was examined as RW1.  No documents were marked on opposite party’s side.

            The case of the complainant is that he had severe pain in the left mandible, hence approached the opposite party’s Dental clinic.  Opposite party had examined the complainant and extracted the loose tooth.  Complainant was given antibiotics and pain killer.  Opposite party states that the condition of the tooth was chronic  periodontitis.  The radio lucent X-ray shows that the complainant had some serious problem causing pain and oral hygiene of the complainant was very poor.  The complainant had approached the opposite party on 7^th complaining of pain.  Opposite party had prescribed medicine with more antibiotic coverage.  According to opposite party he has suggested to take X-ray on 7^th May.  In the deposition of RW1 Page-3 the Doctor has stated that “ 7^th

When the complainant again visited the opposite party on 11^th.  Complainant had complained of more pain and sleeplessness.  Hence opposite party had prescribed Valium 10 Mg. to be used only if necessary.  On 11^th itself opposite party had referred the complainant to Medical College.  Complainant had consulted at Medical College Hospital.  Complainant has produced Ext.A6 the case record of Medical College.  Ext.A6 does not mention that there was any deficiency on the part of opposite party.  Even after visiting Medical College complainant had visited the opposite party’s Dental Clinic on 14-5-07.  Ext.A7 is the proof to show that complainant had consulted opposite party even after his visit to Medical College.  If there was any deficiency on the part of opposite party complainant would not have approached the opposite party after being treated in Medical College.  The complainant has produced Ext.A1 to A17 as Exts.  But the complainant has failed to produce the one vital document X-ray which would clearly show whether the Doctor was stating true facts.  Even though complainant has not denied of taking X-ray from Medical College he has denied that opposite party advised for X-ray.  Complainant could have produced the X-ray which was taken from Medical College.  But he did not do so.  Complainant himself has denied his own affidavit in his deposition in Page-2 complainant has denied that he had consulted in KMCT Medical College and they had prescribed the same medicine as prescribed by opposite party.  “ In Page-2

Complainant has produced Ext.A17 dated 19-5-07.  Ext.A17 disproves the whole statement of complainant and proves that what the Doctor had stated in his v version and his deposition is  the correct one.  From the evidence of both PW1 and RW1 and Exhibits produced by the complainant himself will go to show that the complainant has stated a false case.  At this instance we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            In the result the petition is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 11th day of November 2009.

                                Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                        PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

A1.  Prescription dt. 4-5-07 given by O.P. to the complainant.

A2.  Cash receipt dt. 4-5-07 from Dhanya Medicals.

A3.  Prescription dt. 7-5-07given by O.P. to the complainant.

A4.  Cash receipt dt. 7-5-07.

A5.  Letter dt. 11-5-07 refering the patient to Medical College.

A6.  Case record dt. 14-5-07 from Medical College.

A7.  Prescription dated 14-5-07 given by O.P. to the complainant.

A8.  Cash receipt dated 14-5-07.

A9.  Prescription from K.M.C.T. Dental College.

A10. Cash receipt dt. 19-5-07.

A11. O.P. ticket given from K.M.C.T. Dental College.

A12. Cash receipt dt. 1-6-07.

A13. Copy of the registered Lawyer notice issued to the opposite party.

A14. Postal receipt of the registered letter.

A15. Acknowledgement.

A16. Reply notice.

A17. Prescription dt. 19-5-07.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant.

PW1.  Ali (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1.  Dr. Armstrong ( Opposite party)

                                                                        Sd/- President

                        // True copy //

                                    (Forwarded/By order)

                             SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.