Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/33/2014

D.Kalpana, Dumpala Kalpana, W/o.Venkata Ramanaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.G.Gouthami reddy - Opp.Party(s)

M.V.Vijayakumari

31 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                              Date of filing       :  21-02-2014

                                                              Date of disposal  :   31-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 31st day of AUGUST, 2015.

 

          PRESENT:  Sri M.Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L., LL.M.        

                                      President(FAC)& Member

 

                                      Sri N.S.Kumara Swamy, B.Sc., LL.B., Member

                             

         

                                 C.C.No.33/2014

D.Kalpana, Dumpala Kalpana,

W/o.Venkata Ramanaiah,

Hindu, aged about 34 years,

R/o.D.No.26-1-93,

Jhansi Nagar,

B.V.Nagar, Nellore City,

SPSR Nellore District.                                             …         Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

Dr.G.Gouthami Reddy,

Dental Surgeon,

7 Hills Dental Clinic,

Hindu, aged about 38 years,

D.No.2/26/1-450,

Opp.Saibaba Temple,

B.V.Nagar, Nellore City,

S.P.S.R.Nellore District.                                          …            Opposite party

 

This matter coming on 25-08-2015  before us for final hearing in the presence of Smt.M.V.Vijayakumari, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite party  remained absent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (BY SRI M.SUBBARAYUDU NAIDU, PRESIDENT (FAC) ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH)

 

      This consumer case is filed by the complainant against the opposite party to direct him to pay back the incurred amount of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant, to grant damages of Rs.30,000/- towards his pain and sufferings and also to grant costs of the complaint and pass such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum may deemed it fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

The factual matrix leading to filing of this complaint is as stated as hereunder:-      

 

I. (a)It is the case of the complainant that she had consulted the opposite party who is dental surgeon and the said opposite party is running dental clinic in the name and style of 7 Hills Dental Clinic at B.V.Nagar, Nellore and on 20-09-2013 the complainant had approached  the opposite party for treatment of her infected teeth wherein the opposite party had referred her (complainant) for X-ray of her infected teeth. So, accordingly, the complainant took X-ray for her infected teeth.  Thereafter, basing on X-ray, the said opposite party suggested her to undergo root canal to her infected teeth and it was done by the opposite party on 24^th, 28^th and 30th of September, 2013.  Later on, the said opposite party had without divulging the realty fixed caps to the complainant’s infected teeth.

 

(b) It is further submitted by the complainant in para 4 of her complaint that due to the improper treatment of the said opposite party, she had suffered from unbearable pain of teeth as such she had approached the said opposite party on 01-11-2013 and the said opposite party had suggested to approach Dr.K.Praveen Kumar Reddy who is in turn on examination, removed the caps without disclosing any reason as to why the problem was persisting, but told that he would treat the complainant free of cost.  Even thereafter also, the pain did not subside.  As such, again the complainant had consulted DR.G.Konda Reddy of Nellore with the bad condition of her infected teeth.  The said doctor DR.G.Konda Reddy had removed the teeth of the complainant and revealed that it is due to bad condition of teeth of her root canal and it ought not to have been done it.

 

( c ) It is also further submitted by the complainant that in paras 5 and 6 of her complaint that she had incurred expenditure of a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses due to the said opposite party’s wrong treatment for wrongful gain.  She had suffered unbearable pain due to the said opposite party’s wrong treatment.  She got issued a legal notice dated       28-11-2013 to the said opposite party but the opposite party had failed either to give reply or to pay back the above said amount of Rs.8,000/- along with damages for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering.

 

(d) There are causes of action to file this complaint against the opposite party are mentioned in para – 7 of it.  The complainant has prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may pleased to allow her complaint a prayed for.

 

I I.  DEFENCE:

(i)It is submitted that since 13-06-2014 to 23-02-2015 there is no response from the opposite party. The notice is sent to opposite party in spite of acknowledgement is not yet received from him (opposite party) and called absent continuously and finally posted the case for filing of an affidavit of the complainant on 12-03-2015, Later on, after  several adjournments of the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit on       30-04-2015.  The written arguments of the complainant had also been filed on 07-08-2015 and the case is posted for hearing. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a memo by stating that furnishing the correct address of opposite party. The opposite party is continuously absent and acknowledgement not yet received from him since inception of filing of the complaint.  The opposite party changed his address and it is not intimated it to the Forum. Basing on the merits of the complaint of the complainant, the case is disposed off.

 

III.  The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked his documents as Exs.A1 to A5 on 14-05-2015.  He has also filed his written arguments in support of his case.

 

IV.  Basing on the material available on the record such as complaint, affidavit and also written arguments of complainant, the points that for consideration and determination of them are namely:-

 

(a) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

    parties towards the complainant?

(b)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as

    prayed for, if it is so, to what extent?

                   (c) To what relief?

 

V. POINTS 1 AND 2: I In view of these two points are inter-related with each other, we have taken up them for discussion of the case and its determination. 

 

     Smt M.V.Vijaya Kumari, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the complaint, affidavit and written arguments of the complainant may be read as part and parcel of his oral arguments.  He has further argued that by stating the facts of the case once again, reiterated that the opposite party has avoided notice intentionally and not appearing before the Hon’ble Forum and finally setting him ex-parte.  His main further contention is that the opposite party and on his advice, the complainant met Dr.K.Praveen Kumar Reddy and in turn on examination removed the caps of his teeth without disclosing any reason as to why the problem of pain is persisting.  Thereafter, the complainant has again consulted Dr.Konda Reddy and he removed the teeth of the complainant and revealed that due to bad condition of teeth of her root canal ought not to have been done by the opposite party.

 

   The said learned counsel for the complainant has further contended that the complainant had incurred an expenditure for a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses and it was due to wrong treatment done by the opposite party and thereby he suffered unbearable pain because of negligent attitude adopted by the opposite party.  It is all done by the opposite party with a motive of getting wrongful gain from the complainant.  There is no response from the opposite party for the legal notice dated 28-11-2013              issued by the complainant (Ex.A4). The complainant has filed the relevant documents of the above said doctors and their prescriptions (Exs.A1 to A3).  Finally, the said learned counsel for the complainant has stressed much about Ex.A4 i.e., acknowledgement of the legal notice from the opposite party by saying that the opposite party has sufficient knowledge of the facts of the case and prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may please to allow the complaint with costs.

Forum findings and observations

    Heard, the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record very carefully.  The complainant led her evidence by way of an affidavit.  Oral submissions of her, advanced before us. 

 

      Now, the point is whether the opposite party has committed a deficiency in service and negligence against the complainant?

 

  The patient comes to private clinic/hospital with the hope that the hospital authorities would take proper care.  It is the duty of the hospital to satisfy that there was no lack of care or diligence.  People expect and efficient service from the hospital and if the hospital fails to discharge their duties through their doctors, it is the hospital which has the obligation to justify the treatment administered by doctors who are employed by it and the patient can not expected to know the particulars of  each and every doctor who treated him at the hospital. In majority of the cases, the principle is upheld that the complainant has to discharge initial onus cast upon him and the next moment the onus shifts to the hospital or the treating doctor who have to satisfy the court that there was no lack of care or diligence.

 

The role and importance of Dentist:

 

Dental treatment has not to be administered routinely as is the prevailing practice here.  The mismanagement thereof is being taken very seriously now by the consumer courts.  The patients must apprise the Dentist about his previous medical history and his allergy to any medicine.  It is also the duty of the Dentist to warn the patient of the possible damage to the sensory nerve supply to soft tissues of lip, tongue and cheek due to difficult extraction of teeth.  Omission to  inform the patient of the accidental fracture of teeth, or jaw, or breaking of root of teeth if it is considered  necessary, or to explain the patient about the risk of complications if the removal of broken root is  considered to be greater risk of damage to the  patient.  All in all, the Dentist too has to bear in mind that he owes a duty of care to his patient and he has to discharge the same diligently and carefully.

 

   No one really wants to visit a dentist unless forced to do so.  Usually, patients attend the dentists for pain or discomfort in teeth, gums, jaws, face, or temporomandibular joints.  Failure to recognize obvious lesion and to treat the patient accordingly is considered negligence of the doctor.  Similarly, failure to identify the right cause of the pain also amounts to negligence if appropriate investigation is not prescribed.  Dentists, like every other medical practitioner, owe a duty of care towards their patients and they can be hauled up for any lapse in proper treatment.   

      After scanning the entire record i.e., affidavit and documentary evidence of the complainant, it discloses clearly that the opposite party has irresponsibility towards the complainant while treating her. By receiving the above said legal notice from the complainant (Exs.A4 and an acknowledgement Ex.A5) the opposite party kept silent without giving any reply to her and avoiding to appear before the Forum, amply prove that there is a clear deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant. The prime object of medical profession is to render service to humanity with full respect for the dignity of the man.  Realization of justice is the ultimate function of law. We are convinced with the arguments of the said learned counsel for the complainant.  Mental agony cannot be measured in terms of money.   During the course of final hearing of the case, the complainant has  filed a memo dated 14-08-2015 by stating that the correct address of the opposite party is now as it is as follows as Dr.G.Gouthami Reddy, Dental Surgeon, 7 Hills Dental Clinic, 6/1189, Kasthuri devinagar, Pogathota, Nellore-1.  Hereafter, a copy of the order of the case shall be served to the opposite party on new address, as the case may be. These two points are held in favour of the complainant against the opposite party, accordingly.

 

 

 

POINT No.3 In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, ordering the opposite party to pay Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) with interest @ 9%p.a., from the date of the complaint i.e., 21-02-2014 till the date of the realization to the complainant towards the expenditure incurred already paid by her and to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards damages towards her pain and sufferings and also to pay her Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand  only) towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of the receipt of the order.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 31st day of August,              2015.    

 

 

               Sd/-                                                                         Sd/-

         MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

30-04-2015

:

D.Kalpana, W/o.Venkata Ramanaiah, Hindu, aged about 34 years, resident of D.No.26-1-93, Jhansi Nagar, B.V.Nagar, Nellore City, SPSR Nellore District.

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

N I L -

                                                                              

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	20-09-2013	:	Case sheet of the complainant issued by Dr.G.Gowthami Reddy, Dental Surgeon.
Ex.A2	01-11-2013	:	Case sheet of the complainant issued by Dr.K.Praveen Kumar Reddy.
Ex.A3	08-11- 20-11-2013	:	Prescriptions issued by Dr.G.Konda Reddy, Super Specialty Dental Hospital, Nellore.
Ex.A4	28-11-2013	:	Office copy of legal notice got issued by the advocate for the complainant to the opposite party along with regd. post receipt.
Ex.A5	-	:	Postal acknowledgement.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:                         

			NIL -

         Id/-                                                                                        PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

 

 

Copies to:

 

1. Smt. M.V.Vijaya Kumari, Advocate, Nellore.

          

2. Dr.G.Gouthami Reddy, Dental Surgeon, 7 Hills Dental Clinic, 6/1189, Kasthuri devinagar, Pogathota, Nellore-1.

 

Date when order copies are issued: