IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

 Wednesday, the 31^st  day of  August, 2016

Filed on 06.02.2015

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George  (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

in

CC/No. 38/2015

between

Complainant:-                                                                   Opposite Parties:-

Smt. Sabitha M.                                                                      1.         Dr. Babu George Bsc. BDS

C/o K. Mohanan                                                                                 K. G. Dental Clinic

Veliparambil Veedu                                                                            Ponnamvely

Uzhuva, Pattanakad  P. O.                                                                 Pattanakad P. O., Cherthala

Cherthala                                                                                             Alappuzha – 688531

Alappuzha – 688531                                                                         (By Adv. Vidhu M. Unnithan)

(By Adv. P. S. Anilkumar)

                                                                                                2.         Dr. Tijo Alex MDS (ortho)

                                                                                                            Consultant Specialist,

                                                                                                            K. G. Dental Clinic

                                                                                                            Ponnamvely

                                                                                                            Pattanakad P. O., Cherthala

                                                                                                            Alappuzha – 688531

O R D E R

SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)

               The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-

The complainant approached the opposite parties for treatment to lower the teeth and jaw and applied orthodontic brackets.  The cost of the treatment was Rs.12, 000/- and the complainant consulted the opposite parties every month to tighten the brackets and continued the treatment for a period more than twenty one months.  Since the teeth or jaw has not lowered the complainant questioned the Doctor regarding the same.  Then the opposite parties informed the complainant that they can’t do anything more and informed the complainant to do surgical procedure to lower the jaw and teeth.  The complainant underwent the treatment as per the assurance given by the opposite parties to lower the teeth and jaw and the complainant paid a total amount of Rs.9, 500/-.  Since the treatment was unsuccessful complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

               2.  Opposite parties appeared before the forum and filed joint version.  The version in short is as follows:-

The complaint is not maintainable.  It is true that the petitioner approached the Dental Clinic run by the 1^st opposite party on 04.06.2013.  She came to the clinic on that day for orthodontic treatment.  On examination the 1^st opposite party found that she had both Dental and Skeletal prognathism.  It was explained to her in detail.   It was further explained that for skeletal prognathism surgery was needed.  She was willing to start the dental corrective treatment.  The petitioner started the straight wire orthodentic treatment.   The cost was Rs.12,000/-.  Normally the duration of treatment is between 12 to 20 months.  Extraction of upper and lower 2^nd pre molars was done as part of treatment.  The space was created by the extraction have closed.  This indicates that the dental proclination of her upper and lower anterior teeth have come down.  The treatment was nearing completion.  For the skeletal problem; the opposite parties advised surgery and she was not willing.  There is no deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant is not entitled to get any relief claimed by the complainant.  Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of the opposite parties. 

               3.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the consultation chit.   Ext.A2 is the O.P. ticket from General Hospital Ernakulam.  1^st opposite party was examined as RW1 and document Ext.B1 was marked.   Ext.B1 is the treatment record maintained by the opposite parties.   

               4.  Considering the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the opposite parties the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite Parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

5.  Issues 1 & 2:-  The case of the complainant is that the complainant approached the opposite parties to lower the jaw and teeth and as per the opposite parties assurance the complainant started treatment and applied orthodontic brackets and continued the treatment for a period of 20 months and paid an amount of Rs.9,500/- towards treatment charges.  But the treatment was unsuccessful.  The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties seeking refund of the amount paid together with the compensation of the cost. 

            6.  According to the opposite parties on clinical examination it is found that the  patient/complainant is having both skeletal and dental protrusion and the opposite parties explained in detail to the complainant that for skeletal prognathism surgery is needed and the complainant was not willing for surgery and the opposite parties  started strait wire dental treatment for dental correction.  So the specific contention of the opposite parties is that they started treatment for dental correction only.  As a part of the treatment extraction of upper and lower 2^nd premolar as was done and the space created by the extraction have been closed and this indicates that the dental proclination for upper and lower anterior teeth have come down and also the treatment was not completed the complainant has not come for follow up treatments after January 2015.

            7.  According to the complainant the opposite parties have assured to lower the jaw and teeth and only as per their assurance the complainant started the treatment and paid the amount of Rs.9,500/-.  Ext.A1 shows that the treatment was started on 4.6.2013 and follow up treatments were also done till January.  According to the opposite party they never undertake the treatment for lowering the jaw and the treatment given was only for dental proclination and also the treatment was not completed because the complainant has not come for finishing phase.  In order to substantiate the contention the opposite parties they produced the Ext.B1.  On verifying Ext.B1 it is clear that on clinical examination the opposite parties noticed skeletal and dental proclination and on Ext.B1 it was also stated that the patient is not willing for skeletal treatment.  In Ext.A2 also it is stated that orthognatic surgery is needed for skeletal correction.  The documents produced by the complainant would not show that the opposite parties undertake treatment for skeletal correction.  The treatment undergone was only for dental correction.  When the complainant was examined she admits that four teeth were extracted and the gap created was closed.  The complainant also deposed that the teeth were lowered but the jaw was not lowered and also deposed that the complainant has filed this complaint only because the jaw has not lowered.  On verifying the entire records we cannot see that the opposite parties undertake treatment for lowering the jaw.  According to the opposite parties on examination they found that the patient is having dental and skeletal prognathism and this was explained to the complainant in detail and thereafter they started treatment only for dental proclination, they treated only for dental proclination and the gap created by the extraction of teeth has been closed and the same was admitted by the complainant.  We can’t see any negligence, lack of care or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in treating the complainant.   So, we cannot direct the opposite parties to refund the amount they have charged for the treatment.  But at the same time the opposite parties submitted that the treatment has not been completed.  If the patient/complainant is willing to continue the treatment the opposite parties are bound to complete the treatment without charging any further amount from the complainant.  Since the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not proved the complainant is not entitled to get compensation. 

In the result the complaint is dismissed.    

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31^st day of August, 2016.   

                                                                        Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)  :        

                                                                        Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George  (President) :

                                                            Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)   :

 Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1               -            Sabitha M. (witness)              

Ext. A1          -                        Consultation chit

Ext. A2          -            OP ticket from General Hospital, Ernakulam

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1              -            Dr. Babu George

Ext.B1           -            Treatment record maintained by the opposite party

-//True copy//-

   By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

Typed by: Pj/-   

Compd. By: