BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 10/06/2010

Date of Order : 31/05/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 345/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

Paul Gomez, Member.

1. The following facts have brought the complaint before this Forum.

The 2^nd additional complainant visited the opposite party Dental Clinic with tooth-ache. She had the intention to consult the 1^st opposite party whose name was exhibited in the outside board as well as at conspicuous place in the hospital. But the 2^nd opposite party introduced herself as a competent dental surgeon and persuaded the 2^nd complainant to consult her. Accordingly, the 2^nd complainant was examined by the 2^nd additional opposite party and some medicines were prescribed for five days. On using the medicine at home, for one day the 2^nd complainant developed complications which culminated in Oedima and swelling all over the face and pain started to trouble her very much. Therefore, she revisited the opposite party clinic the very next day and this time, she was advised to take injection outside as prescribed on the reverse side of the consultation note issued by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant contacted her husband over telephone and they visited Paravur Taluk Hospital, where the E.N.T. Surgeon advised them to immediately rush to some major hospital as the situation was grim. A referral letter also was issued by the surgeon. Accordingly, they approached the Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam, where she stayed approximately for one week. These are the facts that prompted the complainants to lodge this complaint seeking several reliefs.

2. Eventhough the opposite parties have filed separate versions, the contentions raised therein are substantially the same. According to the opposite parties, the 2^nd opposite party is a qualified and experienced dental surgeon. The 1^st opposite party is a veteran in the field of dentistry having experience of nearly 35 years. They deny the fact that the 2^nd opposite party had persuaded the complainant to consult her. The diagnosis of Dental Alveolar Abscess was correctly made by the 2^nd opposite party and the first line of treatment given for five days was the standard treatment that was usually given in such cases, when the patient came the next day with the complaint that the pain and swelling were not subsiding, she was referred to her family physician for administration of higher parenteral antibiotic Taxim for five days with an advice to report back for extraction of the ailing tooth, once the swelling subsided. She has not returned for follow up. The diagnosis said to have been made is space infection, it is otherwise known as Ludwigs Angina or Cellulites. It is asserted that proper treatment was given by the additional 2^nd opposite party dental surgeon who examined the patient at the clinic. There is no cause for action against the opposite parties and it is urged that, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

3. The complainants were examined as PWs 1 and 2. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked for them. The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1. Witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW2. The learned counsel appearing on both sides were heard.

4. The points that deserve consideration are the following :-

1. Whether the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not displaying the name board etc. of additional 2^nd opposite party?

2. Whether the service rendered by the additional 2^nd opposite party fell short of the standard practice?

3. What are the reliefs, if any?

5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- The complaint is triggered out of simmering disapproval of the service rendered from the opposite party Dental Clinic. The 1^st opposite party is the owner of the clinic and the additional 2^nd opposite party is a subordinate working under him. According to the complainants, the 2^nd complainant was pushed to the brink of death by the mal-treatment rendered by the additional 2^nd opposite party who failed to provide relief to her from pain and swelling due to tooth-ache. She had a narrow escape from danger due to the Providence of God. Had her husband not intervened timely, some unbreakable injury would have occurred to the lady.

6. The complainants contend that the 2^nd complainant was persuaded by the additional 2^nd opposite party to consult her, when she had visited the clinic with the intention of consultation with the 1^st opposite party, who is undoubtedly a reputed dentist. Unfortunately, the complainants could not substantiate this point by any material evidence. Still the fact remains that the name of the additional 2^nd opposite party is exhibited, nowhere in the premises of the clinic. Nor her name is found printed in any of the documents in relation to the treatment rendered by her. The complainants are very much banking on this point. They have produced copy of the Indian Medical Council (Professional conduct, etiquette and ethics) Regulations 2002, wherein under Clause 1.4.1. “Every physician shall display the registration number accorded to him by the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India in his clinic and in all his prescriptions, certificates money receipts given to his patients.” Eventhough it pertains to code of conduct in relation to physicians and surgeons, analogous provision presumably will be there pertaining to Dental Surgeons also. Therefore, we conclude that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service on this count. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the opposite parties have raised serious allegations regarding the qualification of the additional 2^nd opposite party. Apart from filing version and proof affidavit in the Forum, she has not done anything else in furtherance of proving her qualification and experience in particular, she has not cared to produce copy of her degree certificate as well as that of registration certificate.

7. The next plank of contention is the short fall in the treatment rendered by the additional 2^nd opposite party. Ext. A1 prescription dated 05-04-2010 would show that the following medicines were prescribed by her for 5 days viz. :

Modcef – D

Zerodol – Sp.

Betnasol – 0.5

and Gly. Max – Sulph.

DW2 in the box has clarified that Modcef is an antibiotic, Zerodol for pain and Betnasol is an anti-inflammatory drug. He has also deposed that there are standard medicines that can be prescribed to a patient with tooth ache. He has also stated that Taxim is the medicine prescribed against space infection. He has also opined that the condition of the 2^nd complainant could have been brought under control with taxim injection for five days. The credibility of such an answer cannot be taken in its face value in view of his answer to the question as to why the patient was operated upon in Lissie Hospital. He answered that extraction of the affected tooth was necessary to subside the infection. It is in this background, the reference made in Ext. A2 “to major hospital for expert management has to be appreciated. Both these put together shows that when taxim injection was prescribed by the additional 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd complainant was in a critical stage. The reference was a general request to put her under taxim injection for five days and then extraction would be done. Also, the answer given by PW2 to the question, whether a patient affected by cellulites would exhibit the symptoms of breathing problems and such other bodily infirmities, the answer was that it can occur eventhough these symptoms need not surface in all cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegation that the patient was suffering from these infirmities cannot be simply overlooked. Still, the 2^nd opposite party was very much satisfied with reference generally made to put the patient under taxim injection. This has been done by this junior doctor without referring her for second opinion to a more competent doctor of thirty five years standing in the field who was easily available within the same roof. A doctor of ordinary prudence would have referred the patient for such a consultation.

8. Another angle to the deficiency in service stems out of the first prescription itself. It is quite doubtful in the realm of medical science that medicines prescribed for inflammation has a tendency to suppress the action of antibiotics. That may be why her symptoms have aggravated in spite of the use of antibiotic. It is to be noted that in the second prescription, taxim injection alone was advised and anti-inflammatory drug was avoided. It is incumbent upon the doctor to take reasonable care of his patient. These unwary conducts of the additional 2^nd opposite party lead us to the indisputable conclusion that the service rendered by the additional 2^nd opposite party fell short of the required standard expected of a dentist of her knowledge and experience. The 1^st opposite party has been deficient in medical service, since he has failed to display the qualification and designation of the additional 2^nd opposite party conspicuously in as much as he had deprived the complainants to make a choice of their own in selecting the doctor, whom they wish to consult.

9. Point No. iii. :- The question that remains to be resolved is as to the quantum of damages that can be awarded to the complainants. We think the complainants are entitled for the sum, they have incurred in Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam for further treatment. Mental agony and physical strain undergone by them also has to be compensated apart from costs of the proceedings.

10. Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed as follows :-

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay the charges paid by the complainants as specified in Ext. A3 series bills, after avoiding duplication, if any.

2. The opposite parties shall also jointly and severally pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and physical strain caused by the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of May 2012

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========