BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2018
Filed on : 05-02-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.77/2016
Between
Suja Muraleedharan : Complainant
W/o. S.Muraleedharan, (By Adv. D.B. Binu, M/s. Cochin
17/133 Block 5, V.B. Gardens, Chamber of Lawyers,
Chembumukku, Kakkanad West P.O., Providence road, Kochi-18)
Kakkanad S.O., Kakkanad S.O.,
Pin-682 030, Ernakulam.
Vs
1. Dr. Anju Thomas, : Opposite parties
Touch Aesthetic Medical Clinic, (By Adv. Shyam Padman,
NH Bypass, Near Gold Souk, Aswathi, West hill, Calicut)
R.P. Arcade, Vytila,
Ernakulam, Kerala.
2. Dr. Shajahan,
Specialist, The Touch Aesthetic
Medical Clinic, N.H. By pass,
Near Gold Souk, R.P. Arcade,
Vytila, Ernakulam,
Kerala.
3. The Tocuh Aesthetic Medical Clinic,
Rep. By its Administrator/Managing
Director, NH Bypass,
Near Gold Souk, R.P. Arcade,
Vytila, Ernakulalm, Kerala.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant is a self employed business women approached the 1st opposite party, Dentist working in 3rd opposite party clinic. The 2nd opposite party is a Specialist Dentist the 3rd opposite party clinic. The 3rd opposite party published Exbt. A1 web site and on seeking the advertisement the complainant approached the 3rd opposite party for teeth whitening and to cure tooth sensitivity. She took an appointment on 12-10-2015 for the 1st opposite party and on examination the 1st opposite party made a prognosis that only two molars of the left lower jaw is having sensitivity. The 1st opposite party had assured that teeth whitening can also be done on the same day, accordingly the treatment was commenced . However, the 1st opposite party had failed to inform the complainant about the mode of treatment and without getting the informed consent of the complainant, the opposite party used lasers for the treatment of tooth sensitivity which is not an acceptable practice in dentistry. The usage of laser on the complainant without her permission and consent, constitute unfair trade practice. The complainant was charged with Rs. 4,000/- for the procedure . Despite the treatment, the complainant did not get any relief . She felt severe sensitivity in all her teeth. The treatment given to the complainant by the 1st and 3rd opposite parties was deficient treatment and amounted to unfair trade practice. The complainant approached Dr. Thomas K. Poulose for further treatment and he advised to splint the upper and lower teeth with all ceramic rounds . He had also done root canal treatment in the upper left incisor. The complainant had to spent Rs. 1,20,000/- for the treatment and the 2nd treatment was necessitated due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
3. Notice were issued to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a version resisting the complaint regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
4. When the matter came up for complainant‘s evidence in list, the complainant did not appear to give any oral evidence. She did not file even an affidavit. The documents produced by the complainant at the time of filing the complaint were marked as Exbts. A1 to A4. The opposite party filed a proof affidavit and Exbt. X1 was marked. DW1 was cross-examined by the counsel for the complainant.
5. The only point for consideration as to whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
6. The issue.
The complainant produced Exbt. A1 photo copy of the opening page of the web site of the opposite party. Exbt. A2 dated 12-10-2015, is the invoice raised by the 3rd opposite party for the desensitization of the teeth of the complainant. Exbt. A3 is a certificate issued by one Dr. Thomas K. Poulose stating that the complainant had a history of an unsuccessful treatment for relieving sensitivity. Exbt. A4 is the professional invoice issued by Dr.Thomas K. Poulose in favour of the complainant for having received Rs. 1,20,000/-. None of the above documents could prove that the case of the complainant that the opposite parties were negligent in treating the complainant and that to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The issue is therefore found against the complainant.
7. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed, however, without any costs.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of July 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : True copy of photograph
A2 : True copy of Medical service
report
A3 : True copy of certificate
dt. 12-11-2015
A4 : Copy of bill dt. 12-11-2015
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Depositions
DW1 : Dr. Anju Thomas
Copy of order desspatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
