IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 34/2019 (Filed on 08/03/2019)
Complainant : Thresiamma Plathottathil,
Residing at Devanahalli,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore – 562 110.
(By Adv: S.M. Sethu Raj)
Vs
Opposite party : Dr.Joe Manuel BDS,
Mundattuchundayil,
Director & Chief Dental Surgeon,
Fathima Dental Clinic & Orthodonic Center, Opp.Kadamapuzha Hospital,
Kanjirappally P.O, Kottayam.
(By Advs: Shyam Padman & M.C. Suresh)
O R D E R
SRI.MANULAL V.S, PRESIDENT
Crux of the complainant is as follows:
James Elamthottam who is one of the complainant’s family friend unaware of the ulterior motives of the opposite party referred the complainant, to the opposite party’s clinic. The complainant believing the recommendations of the said James travelled all the way from Bangalore to Kerala to get her teeth root canalling and fixing crowns. As this dental treatment is only a minor one, complainant was under the impression that it would not cost more than Rs.20,000/- or Rs.30,000/- which is approximately the cost charged in any other clinics in India. It is alleged in the complaint that with malafide intention to cheat and deceive her, the opposite party explained and convinced her about the inordinate costs that he would charge her. It is alleged in the complaint that it was just a minor treatment of implanting 3 crowns for her teeth but the opposite party had charged the complainant exorbitantly a sum of Rs.84,000/-.
The complainant submits that, being an innocent lady she was reluctant to demand the opposite party for the bills. Her family friend upon enquiry with other counterparts of opposite party and other reliable sources about the exorbitant charges came to know that these charges were unprecedented and unheard of. It is submitted in the complaint that she, started requesting opposite party for the bills pertaining to the treatment. With no other options left, the complainant sent 5 bills marked duplicate dated 15-09-2018 through whatsapp media. It is alleged in the complaint that, opposite party was trying to cover up the overcharging incident by fraudulent and substandard methods. It is further alleged in the complaint that, the treatment items were unreasonably and illogically increased to list 11 wired items of work against which irrational amounts were charged and thus Rs. 84,000/- could be readjusted to cheat an innocent patient. According to the complainant these acts are clear indication of unfair trade practice, harassment and mental agony caused by the opposite party to the complainant.
Though the complainant issued a lawyers notice on 20-09-2018, the opposite party issued a vague reply notice. It is alleged in the complaint that on 4-01-2019 one of the tooth root canalled and crowned by the opposite party broke down and all the treatment provided by the opposite party want in vain which shows the inefficiency of the opposite party. Due to this development the complainant again had to spent some more money on the same treatment. When the opposite party was informed about the same he replied vaguely. Hence this complaint is filed by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party to refund Rs. 84,000/- along with a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- .
Upon notice opposite party filed version contending as follows:
Complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. Pricing or charges levied for the services rendered by the opposite party will not and cannot constitute a consumer dispute. The complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands. Inconsistent and new case and claims are seen incorporated in the complaint as an afterthought, which were not there at the time of issuance of lawyers notice. The complainant has not produced the treatment records in her possession, which amounts to willful suppression of material documents. The only allegation in the notice was regarding the charges/price, which in fact is an afterthought, for the treatment had commenced only after expressly evinced interest to undergo the treatment after being fully aware of the charges/expenses and fully agreeing to the same. There is no statutory fixed MRP and it is only the amount mutually agreed and fixed that was charged and paid by the complainant. Neither during the first consultation nor during the subsequent visits, or while making payments, she had raised any objections, complaints, or protests regarding the professional charges and expenses quoted by the opposite party for the proposed procedure. Complainant had only after fully understanding and agreeing to the charges and expenses that would be incurred, willingly and voluntarily underwent the treatment and made the payments. Moreover, complainant is not entitled to challenge the professional charges and expenses, which in fact are told in advance, and only if the patient is fully convinced and agrees to the same that opposite party commences the treatment.
It is submitted in the version that complainant had voluntarily paid the advance amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 24-07-2018, and had come back for the continued treatment on 27-07-2018 and 30-07-2018. The balance of the agreed amount (Rs.59,000/-) was paid by the complainant on 27-07-2018. Opposite party believes that James Elamthottam who had gone for ordinary ceramic prosthesis around a decade ago might be harbouring under some misunderstanding or misapprehension that the charges quoted to the complainant was exorbitant in comparison to what he was charged, without realizing the fact that complainant had opted for the costlier Ziroconia Platinum Plus prosthesis and not the normal cheaper ordinary ceramic one. Apart from that, it is not just the cost of the prosthesis that is involved ,but also the professional charges for the multiple sittings and the attendant and incidental expenses including that of the costly consumables, medicines etc. It is submitted in the version that it is the liberty, discretion and decision of the opposite party to state his charges, and the complainant was always at liberty to accept or reject the same. Having accepted the same and availed the treatment/services, the complainant is not entitled to raise such an objection now. Opposite party had never insisted for cash payments, and it was the complainant who decided to make the payment in cash. Complainant was throughout treated bestowing all care, caution attention and as per universally accepted standard protocol. As desired by her the best prosthesis was fabricated from one of the best Dent Prosthetic lab in the state viz. Dent Care Lab, Moovattupuzha and the same precisely fitted so as to give best comfort and aesthetic appearance and complainant was fully satisfied about the same which fact is evident from the conspicuous absence of any allegations regarding the treatment procedure and fit of the prosthesis in the notice dated 20-09-2018. Allegation of the breakage of tooth is not proper and the same can be attributed to any negligence on the part off the opposite party. If it is true it can only be on account of callous negligence on the part of the complainant. The opposite party requested the complainant to report the clinic for examination and further management of the situation when he was told over phone about the alleged breakage. But the complainant never turned up which indicates the falsity of such allegations. The opposite party has made no false or misleading representation on his website as well. The different allegations contained in paragraph nos. 10 to 14 of the complaint relating to the bills are baseless, false and ill motivated. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
Evidence of this case consists of deposition of PW1, PW2, DW1 and DW2 and Exhibits A1 to A5 from the side of complainant and Exhibits B1 to B3 from the side of the opposite party.
On evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? and If so what are the reliefs and costs?
POINT Nos.1 & 2
The case of the Complainant is that, on 24.07.2018, she consulted the opposite party for her teeth root canalling and fixing crowns. According to the complainant though it was a minor treatment of implanting 3 crowns for her teeth but the opposite party charged exorbitantly Rs. 84,000/-. It is alleged in the complaint that on 4-01-2019 one of the tooth root canalled and crowned by the opposite party broke down and all the treatment provided by the opposite party went in vain which shows the inefficiency of the opposite party.
Complaint was resisted by the opposite party by stating that there is no statutory fixed MRP and it is only the amount mutually agreed and fixed that was charged and paid by the complainant and complainant is not entitled to challenge the professional charges and expenses, which in fact are told in advance, and only if the patient is fully convinced and agrees to the same that opposite party commences the treatment. It is further contended by the opposite party that the allegation of the breakage of tooth is not proper and if it is true it can only be on account of callous negligence on the part of the complainant.
Exbt. A2 is the copy of the bill issued by the opposite party to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 84,000/-. DW1 who is none other than the opposite party submitted in the proof affidavit that complainant had opted for the costlier Ziroconia Platinum Plus prosthesis and not the normal cheaper ordinary ceramic one. Apart from that, the said amount includes the professional charges for the multiple sittings and the attendant and incidental expenses including that of the costly consumables, medicines etc.
On going through Exhibit A2 we can see that lab charges for 3 crowns of Dent Care Zirconia Platinum Plus was Rs.31,920/-. Out of Rs.84,000/- the balance amount includes the professional charges of the opposite party and charges for the medicines, consumables and incidental expenses. PW2 and DW2 deposed before the Commission that fees for the dental treatment is not fixed by any statute. Both PW2 and DW2 further deposed that the fees and charges for the dental treatment is based on the agreement between the treating doctor and patient. PW2, DW1 and DW2 deposed that the Zirconia Platinum Plus crown is costly one and the same was preferred by premium customers. Though the complainant vehemently argued that she was exorbitantly charged by the opposite party, the complainant did not adduce any evidence to substantiate her case.
The prosthesis fixed by opposite party admittedly had lifelong warranty. Exhibit A5 proves that crown of the 4/7th teeth was re-fixed by PW2. PW2 deposed before the Commission that crown of 3/7th teeth was broken and he advised the patient to the consult another doctor. PW2 and DW2 deposed before the Commission that crown dislodgement and breakage can be caused due to multifacterial reasons. They further deposed that improper and negligent use, trauma, para functional habits. Chewing of bubblegum can cause dislodgement and breakage of crown. The opposite party deposed before the commission that he had not advice the complainant about the reasons which may cause the dislodgement or breakage of crown.
Hon’ble National Commission in M/S. Sravani Dental Hospital Vs Anitha Tangellamudi decided on 8 March, 2022 has held as under :
“21. The consensus between dentists and patients is essential to standardize treatment plans and methods. In dental treatment, patients often ask orthodontists if they will look more beautiful and have doubts about the ultimate aesthetic effects. Also there is need to calibrate the perception between dentists and patients about the classification of aesthetics into unpleasant, acceptable, and pleasant; otherwise there may be some conflicting views of expectations and treatment. The teeth are only part of the face and it cannot be simply concluded that the whole face will become more beautiful once the teeth become neat.”
Notwithstanding any cause advertent or inadvertent on the part of complainant, the opposite party was duty bound to stand to the terms and conditions as laid down in the warranty regarding prosthesis used by him for the treatment of the complainant. We find merit in the contentions raised by the complainant regarding deficiency on the part of opposite party in providing him service as per the warranty.
Keeping in view the facts into consideration, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the complaint is allowed against opposite party with directions to refund an amount of Rs.31,920/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 25,000/ within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If not complied as directed, the amount will carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of June, 2023
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the side of the Complainant:
PW1 - Thresiamma Plathottathil
PW2 - Dr.Tony Varghese
Witness from the side of Opposite Party :
DW1 - Dr.Joe Manuel
DW2 - Dr.Sebastian Thomas
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant:
Ext. A1 - Copy of Fee Schedule 2017
Ext.A2 - Copies of duplicate bills dated 15/09/2018 for Rs.84,000/- issued by the opposite party
Ext.A3 - Copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant
dated 20/09/2018
Ext.A4 - Copy of Reply Notice dated 07/11/2018 issued by the
Opposite party
Ext.A5 - Certificate dated 07/12/2019 issued by PW2
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party:
Ext.B1 - Print out of the screenshot of the Whats App messages from and to the encrypted mobile account of Mr.James Elamthottam dated 15/08/2018, 09/09/2018, 10/09/2018 and 13/09/2018
Ext.B2 - Print out of the screenshot of the SMS messages from and to the mobile phone of Mr.James Elamthottam dated 14/09/2018 and 15/09/2018
Ext.B3 - Copy of Section 65B Certification
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
