Date of Filing : 18.01. 2010
Date of Order : 20.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.451/2010
WEDNESDAY THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. K.V. Rajendra Prasad,
S/o. Late Kaza Venkata Ramana Rao,
No.7, Senthil Andavar Street,
F-1, Akshaya Flats,
Dhanalakshmi Colony,
Vadapalani,
Chennai 600 026. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. Dr. P.Suresh, B.D.S.,
Dental Surgeon,
Vishnu Dental Clinic,
Madhuram Flats,
151, Kumaran Colony Main Road,
Vadapalani,
Chennai 600 026.
2. Dr.C.Ezhilmaran, B.D.S.,
Dental Surgeon,
Vishnu Dental Clinic,
Madhuram Flats,
151, Kumaran Colony Main Road,
Vadapalani,
Chennai 600 026. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : M/s. Kumar & another
For the Opposite party-1 : M/s. S.Natarajan
For the opposite party-2 : Exparte.
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant and also to pay cost of the compliant.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that he aged 63 went to the opposite party clinic on 16.3.2009 complaining sever pain in upper left teeth and the opposite party informed the complainant that the upper left tooth is infected and adjacent one is also likely to be decayed and advised the complainant to extract five and six tooth and the same was extracted and after that the complainant was having pain and found some discomfort and informed the opposite party where he was examined and x-ray was taken and the opposite party having seen the x-ray informed the complainant, everything was normal and prescribed medication. In the month April and May 2009 the complainant was having bleeding while brushing his teeth and informed the opposite party the complainant is proceeding to Landon on 22nd May 2009 and back to India on 19.9.2009. On 21.5.2009 the complainant met the opposite party which was examined by the 2nd opposite party and observed that there was some infection in the lower left tooth (LL7) and in the upper Left tooth. The 2nd opposite party cleaned all the teeth and filling was made in LL7 and the same time the opposite party-1 also seen the patient and informed everything was normal and prescribed medication. The complainant left Chennai on 22.5.2009 and reached Landon on 23.5.2009. From 24.5.2009 the pain in his teeth was increased and the medicines prescribed by the opposite parties had not given any relief from pain. The complainant took an appointment with the dentist on 29.5.2009 at Landon the doctor who examined him had informed the complainant his lower left 2nd molar tooth LL7 had distal decay and cavity and puss was coming out of the draining sinus tracts and after giving medication the doctor at Landon advice the complainant to undergo “root canal” treatment in two stages one is ”Amalgam filling” large for LL 7, “Composite filling” medium UL3 and surgical extraction premolar / molar for UL6 for which the complainant had incurred 40 pounds, had expense the complainant underwent root canal treatment on 11.6.2009 and RCT molar stage-2 for LL7 on 14.7.2009 for which he had incurred more than 160 U.K. pounds as expense.
2. When the complainant on 20.8.2009 went to other dental clinic and had metal crown for LL7 for which the root canal treatment was done in Landon by verdure of this he had an expense of Rs.1000/-. On 25.8.2009 he got the root stump RS6 extracted this was informed by the complainant to the opposite party but there was no proper reply from the opposite party. Hence the complainant demanded Rs.40,000/- as expenses and mental and gross medical negligence Rs.60,000/ for deficiency of service and sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 15.10.2009 calling upon to pay the captioned amount and the same was received by the opposite party for which they send a reply through their counsel on 3.12.2009. As such, the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. As such the complainant sought for claims for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant and also to pay cost of the compliant. Hence the complaint.
Written version 1st opposite party is as follows:
3. The 1st opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite party-1 denies the various allegation made by the complainant and they are not disputed about the receipt of fees for their consultation and it was informed the complainant had taken medicine beyond suggestion and indulged in self medication. It is stated that “gingivitis” is very common problem, occurs while brushing one’s teeth, which has got nothing with tooth extraction done earlier. It is stated that on 21.5.2009 scaling was done to the complainant and the medicines were prescribed, that the complainant was staying at Landon and the opposite party was not aware of the complainant’s activities at Landon, especially visit to dentist over there and other related acts, for it was only to the knowledge of the complainant and the opposite party cannot be mulcted with an imaginary liability. The complainant’s visited to Sri Viknesh Dental Clinic had metal crown done with his own decision. It is absolutely false to allege that remaining root stump was removed after extraction
done on 16.3.2009. The opposite party-1 denies the allegations made against them and it is a vexatious complaint. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with cost.
4. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 2nd opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 2nd opposite party was set exparte on 8.7.2011.
5. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A25 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of 1st Opposite party filed and no documents was marked on the side of the 1st opposite party.
6. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
7. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A25 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version and proof affidavit filed by the 1st opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.
8. The complainant aged 63 went to the opposite party clinic on 16.3.2009 complaining sever pain in upper left teeth and the opposite party informed the complainant the upper left tooth is infected and adjacent one is also likely to be decayed and advised the complainant to extract five and six tooth and the same was extracted and after that the complainant was having pain and found some discomfort and informed the opposite party where he was examined and x-ray was taken and the opposite party having seen the x-ray informed the complainant everything was normal and prescribed meditation. In the month April and May 2009 the complainant was having bleeding while brushing his teeth and informed the opposite party the complainant is proceeding to Landon on 22nd May 2009 and back to India on 19.9.2009. On 21.5.2009 the complainant met the opposite party which was examined by the 2nd opposite party and observed that there is some infection in the lower left tooth (LL7) and in the upper Left tooth. The 2nd opposite party cleaned all the teeth and filling was made in LL7 and the same time the opposite party-1 also seen the patient and informed everything was normal and prescribed medication. The complainant left Chennai on 22.5.2009 and reached Landon on 23.5.2009. From 24.5.2009 the pain in his teeth was increased and the medicines prescribed by the opposite parties had not given any relief from pain. The complainant took an appointment with the dentist from 29.5.2009 at Landon the doctor who examined him had informed the complainant his lower left 2nd molar tooth LL7 had distal decay and cavity and puss was coming out of the draining sinus tracts and after giving medication the doctor at Landon advice the complainant to undergo “root canal” treatment in two stages one is “Amalgam filling” large for LL 7, “Composite filling” medium UL3 and surgical extraction premolar / molar for UL6 for which the complainant has incurred 40 pounds has expense. The complainant underwent root canal treatment on 11.6.2009 and RCT molar stage-2 for LL7 on 145.7.2009 for which he had incurred more than 160 U.K. pounds as expense. It was contented by the complainant these things were happened because of the poor and negligent treatment given by the opposite parties and because of this incidence the complainant has to made his return journey on 9.8.2009 and incurred loss of Rs.2000 per ticket complainant reached Chennai on 10.8.2009 and met the opposite party clinic on 18.8.2009 and explaining the agony. When the complainant on 20.8.2009 went to other dental clinic and had metal crown for LL7 for which the “root canal” treatment was done in Landon by verdure of this he had an expense of Rs.1000/-. On 25.8.2009 he got the root stump RS6 extracted this was informed by the complainant to the opposite party but there is no proper reply from the opposite party. Hence the complainant felt and demanded Rs.50,000/- as expenses and mental agony Rs.50,000/ for deficiency of service and sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 15.10.2009 calling upon to pay the captioned amount. The opposite party met the counsel of the complainant on 3.12.2009 and denied the averments made by the complainant. Hence the complainant field this complaint to this forum seeking remedy on 18.1.2010.
9. The opposite party-1 denies the various allegation made by the complainant and they are not disputed about the receipt of fees for their consultation and it was informed the complainant had taken medicine beyond suggestion and indulged in self medication. It is stated that gingivitis is very common problem, occurs while brushing one’s teeth, which has got nothing for the tooth extraction done earlier. It is stated that on 21.5.2009 scaling was done to the complainant and the medicines were prescribed that the complainant was staying at Landon and the opposite party is not aware of the complainant’s activities at Landon, especially visit to dentist, over there and other related acts for it is only to the knowledge of the complainant and the opposite party cannot be mulcted with an imaginary liability. The complainant’s visit to Sri Viknesh Dental Clinic had metal crown done with his own decision. It is absolutely false to allege that remaining root stump was removed, after extraction done on 16.3.2009. The opposite party-1 denies the allegations made against them and it is vexatious complaint.
10. Moreover the forum had directed an expert opinion to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, vide their letter Rc.No.973/2010 on 16.11,2010 by quoting Supreme court Civil, appeal No.3541/2008, dated 17.2.2009 in the case of
Martin F.D.Seuza..Vs..
Mohd Ishfaq
reported in I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC) para-117
11. On the ground of medical negligence which had attributed prima facie complaint. Based on these the Dean of Kilpauk Medical college had appointed three doctors having a committee requesting to go the paper and give opinion. But there was no reply from the medical team about this. In the mean time the opposite party had got one supportive document from other doctor vide his letter dated 15.2.2010 the complainant gone to his clinic on his examination of his oral cavity he was found to be edentulous with plus 67 missing. Apart from this he had metal crowns on 76 plus 67 and a four unit metal bride in 7654 and he was advised to go for a removal partial denture or a implant supported prosthesis for the missing teeth and he was advised to go for OPG x-ray.
12. It was observed by this forum there is no expert opinion needed and the CMP 140/2013 in CC451/2010 was allowed to accept the documents without expert opinion.
13. The opposite party also submitted a citation of (2010) 5 Supreme Court cases 513 in Civil appeal No.2641 of 2010 decided on March 8th 2010. It is furnished the expert opinion is furnished only Expert opinion is required only when a case is complicated enough warranting expert opinion or facts of a case are such that Forum cannot resolve an issue without expert’s assistance.
14. Based on this the forum has not insisted expert opinion in this case. The opposite party had pleaded that they had given a proper treatment and the knowledge of patient living up at abroad was not known to them and the complainant’s medication and other activities what the complainant had made does not have bearing with the treatment what they have given and to the best of knowledge they had given proper treatment and pleading the forum to dismiss the case.
15. Pursuant of the complaint, proof affidavit and documents filed by the complainant and written version and proof affidavit and citation filed by the opposite party-1 and the available records filed in this forum it was observed that the complainant complains and the medical Topics Oral Health Cavities used where viewed with the medical publications, “A distal cavity is an area of decay on a tooth surface, this surface being the furthest from the middle of the front of your jaw. These types of cavities often occur on a part of a tooth that faces an adjacent “mesial” tooth surface. The terms “distal” (and “mesial”) are used to denote the location of a cavity relative to the front of the jaw.”
“Cavities are tiny holes in your teeth that have developed from decay. Left untreated, cavities will get larger, and can cause toothache and possible loss of teeth. Anybody can get a cavity, but put yourself of greater risk if you don’t brush regularly, or frequently consume sweets or sugar drinks. Your dentist can help prevent cavities with fluoride treatments, and can find them by taking pictures (x-ray) of the teeth. Once found, the dentist may treat your cavity with a filling or if extensive, with a crown. If there has been an extensive infection, other treatments, including antibiotics or a root canal surgery may be indicated. “
16. A “root canal” is a treatment used to repair and save a tooth that is badly decayed or became infectia. During the root canal procedure, the nerve and the pulp are removed and the inside of the tooth is cleaned and scaled. Without treatment, the tissue surrounding the tooth will become infected and abscesses may form.
17. On reviewing all the documents furnished to the forum already the complainant had met the doctor / opposite party when the tooth was badly decayed become infectia the procedure was done by the opposite party and scaling was made and medicines were prescribed. When the complainant went to Landon it is not known to the opposite party what type of medication he had and what type of sweets or sugar drinks he had consumed which would have aggravated the pain. Normally after the root canal procedure, the gum will be closed by filling and scaling. The treatment took by the complainant in Landon is uneventful one where the proof of negligence by the opposite party was not supported by the evidence. Moreover the complainant when reached India took his own decision to go to other hospital and crowning was made. The complainant had not established, the left over tooth in the canal gum by the opposite party where the complainant could not substantiate. The medial negligence with documentary proof and the opinion obtained by the complainant is not a doctor referred by the Kilpaul Medical College and the proof of evidence was not substantiated, the left over tooth was done only by the opposite party, the doctor who had given treatment at Landon had not given any proof that the opposite parties have left over the particle on the cavity. Hence, we are of the considered view that the complainant could not establish the documentary evidence to prove the negligence of the doctor and we feel judiciously that negligence could not be accepted and the negligence is not proved to this forum and we are of the opinion that this complaint stands dismissed with no cost.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- 16.3.2009 - Copy of Prescription given by the opposite parties to the
Complainant.
Ex.A2- 20.3.2009 - Copy of X-ray details.
Ex.A3- 21.5.2009 - Copy of prescription given by the 2nd opposite party to the
Complainant.
Ex.A4- - - Copy of Opinion of Dentist of white stare Dental care.
Ex.A5- 29.5.2009 - Copy of Treatment estimate of White star Dental care.
Ex.A6- 29.5.2009 - Copy of Payment receipt.
Ex.A7- 29.5.2009 - Copy of Medicine cover.
Ex.A8- 11.6.2009 - Copy of payment receipt.
Ex.A9- 14.7.2009 - Copy of payment receipt.
Ex.A10- 20.8.2009 - Copy of receipt given by Sri Vignesh Dental Clinic.
Ex.A11- 25.8.2009- Copy of receipt given by Sri Vignesh Dental Clinic.
Ex.A12- 26.8.2009 - Copy of opinion of Dr.L.Natarajan at Sri Vignesh Dental
Clinic.
Ex.A13- - - Copy of Visa details of the complainant.
Ex.A14- - - Copy of Visa details of the complainant’s wife.
Ex.A15- 15.10.2009- Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A16- 20.10.2009- Copy of Ack. Cards.
Ex.A17- 30.10.2009- Copy of reply notice.
Ex.A18- 5.11.2009 - Copy of rejoinder sent by hte4 complainant.
Ex.A19- 6.11.2009 - Copy of Ack. Card.
Ex.A20- 3.12.2009 - Copy of 2nd reply notice.
Ex.A21- 9.12.2009- Copy of rejoinder sent by the complainant
Ex.A22- 10.12.2009- Copy of Ack. Card.
Ex.A23- - - X-ray.
Ex.A24- - - Broken tooth.
Ex.A25- - - CD.
Opposite parties’ side documents:
.. Nil..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
