DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of January 2017
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 27/10/2014
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.165/2014)
Naziya
W/o.Abdul Manaf.P.A.
Pulikkal House,
Selvapalalayam,
Palakkad – 678 013 - Complainant
(By Adv.Redson Scaria)
V/s
1.Dr.S.Rineesh
Fathers name not known,
Smile Care Speciality Dental Clinic,
Kesar Building Near Stadium Bus Stand,
CB Road, Palakkad – 678 013
2.Dr.Shiji Rineesh,
W/o.S.Rineesh,
Smile Care Speciality Dental Clinic,
Kesar Building Near Stadium Bus Stand,
CB Road, Palakkad – 678 013 - Opposite parties
(By Adv.P.R.Hariharan)
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member
The complaint is against the medical negligence committed by the opposite parties. The complainant had approached the opposite parties for removal of teeth due to pain in her cheek in the month of May 2014. The first opposite party suggested the complainant to remove the wisdom tooth on both sides. The complainant was further directed to take medicines for three days and was asked to visit again on 24/5/2014. The complainant visited again as directed after taking the medicines prescribed. The first opposite party with the assistance of 2nd opposite party took the complainant’s tooth from both sides. The opposite parties claimed and received an amount of Rs.4500/- from the complainant towards the service charge and gave some medicines from their own medical store. No bill or any receipt was given by opposite party for the same. The opposite party after removal of the teeth had suggested the complainant to take medicines for 5 days. The complainant started feeling excruciating pain over her face since the teeth were taken off inspite of taking prescribed medicines. The complainant again had to visit the opposite parties after 10 days since the pain was not relieved. The opposite parties subjected the complainant for further checking and had made some stitches inside her left cheek. Unsatisfied by the service and due to further pain the complainant had to search for another dental clinic and got herself consulted at JK multi specialty dental clinic, Palakkad.
The complainant was surprised to know that the opposite parties had taken off three teeth instead of two by mistake. The said fact was kept unseen from the complainant. Contradictory to that the opposite parties had taken three teeth by mistake and kept this fact hidden from the complainant. The tooth claimed to have been removed was in fact not completely removed as the roots of the same remained in the gum causing excruciating pain. Though it is not that rare to see the remains of root after taking the teeth here there is huge negligence on the part of opposite parties in not properly removing the roots of the tooth. Moreover the fact that three teeth were removed was not disclosed to the complainant. The complainant had to suffer extra pain at the hands of opposite party due to their negligence. The complainant was having erosive Gastritis and the said fact was already made known to the opposite party at the time of consultation. The complainant had requested the opposite party to reduce the amount of dosage of medicines. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the opposite parties the complainant had to take further medicines for the removal of roots left by the opposite parties. Complainant was forced to take further medicines for such removal. Since the complainant was an erosive Gastritis patient it was too much for her to have antibiotics and pain killers. The complainant had to suffer unbearable pain at the hands of opposite parties who were hazardously negligent in all sense. The complainant further submits that the opposite party had mistakenly taken off a tooth which was not at all damaged and taking of was not at all necessary. The complainant was conducting a pre school for kids and was earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to the pain she was not able to conduct the school and had lost a sum of Rs.1 lakh. The opposite party had left the complainant only with the option to implant the teeth which would be expensive in all means. The complainant therefore seeks a sum of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite parties towards compensation for medical negligence and an amount of Rs.1 lakhs for expenses towards implanting teeth and Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.1.5 lakhs for loss of income and cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties entered upon the notice from the Forum and filed their version stating the following contentions.
It is true that the complainant had visited the opposite parties clinic on 4/4/2014 and was examined as outpatient. She had complaints of pain on the lower left and right back teeth, pain is there since a few months and is of intermittent type. She had acidity problem but not under regular medication. No medical or scan reports detailing the severity not submitted. She was not allergic to any allopathic medicines. The entire procedure performed by the first opposite party is in keeping with the normal dental procedure performed by any dental surgeon. The second opposite party had absolute no role in the treatment of the complainant. The opposite parties have not demanded any amount as alleged in the complaint. The first opposite party had informed the complainant about the procedure which would have to be performed for the tooth extraction and the complications which may occur while performing such surgeries. The complainant was given medication for three days and asked to come after three days. The complainant did not turned up as advised but came only on 24/5/2014. The complainant came for the review as directed and there was no post operative complication. The complainant did not complained about any pain or was the complainant stitched up again as averred in the complaint. The allegations that the opposite parties had taken off three teeth instead of two is specifically denied. It was the remains of roots after taking the teeth. The complainant’s surgery was performed with due care and caution and performed competently. There was absolutely no negligence on the part of the first opposite party while performing surgery on the complainant. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint had to be dismissed.
Complainant and opposite parties filed their respective chief affidavits. Complainant filed application for cross examination of opposite party. Opposite party filed counter stating that interrogatories is sufficient. Hence complainant filed questionnaire and opposite party filed answers to the questionnaire. Complainant filed an application as IA 169/16 for cross production of certain documents from the custody of opposite party. Opposite party filed counter in IA stating that all documents are already produced before the Forum. Hence IA was closed. Complainant filed another application as IA 268/16 to produce documents and adduce evidence by the expert doctor. IA was allowed. Witness was examined as PW1 and document was marked as Ext.C1. Ext.A1 to A5 was marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 was marked from the side of the opposite party.
The following issues are considered
1.Whether the opposite parties have committed medical negligence as alleged by the complainant?
2.If so, what is the reliefs?
In order to appreciate the above it is necessary to look into the deposition of PW1. In Page 2 last line “here is no rule that expertise is needed in the extraction of 8th molar teeth (page 3). According to the case sheet an attempted extraction was done 10 days back (as per the history of the patient). By attempted extraction complete teeth was not removed. It may be the pain was on account of the roots left by the previous doctor to extract the tooth”. In cross examination the expert doctor has given an opinion about the previous extraction “I cannot categorically say about previous extraction, I only saw non healed socket. Normally only an impacted teeth will be removed. If there is fracture there will be remnants in the extraction of teeth.” The complainant had also admitted in her complaint para 4 “though it is not rare to see the remains of root after taking teeth. Since the complainant’s pain was not relieved she was forced to visit the opposite party again after the tooth was extracted. Then the opposite party had made some stitches inside the mouth of the complainant. There after the complainant was forced to consult with another doctor who after check up informed the complainant that the tooth claimed to have been removed was in fact not completely removed, as the root of the same remained in the gum causing excruciating pain. From the examination of the expert it is clear that he has nothing to say about the extraction made by the opposite party. Ext.B1 case sheet of the complainant shows the procedures adopted by the opposite party in treating the complainant. It shows that the opposite party have followed practice acceptable to the medical profession. Appreciating the evidence produced from both parties there is no cogent evidence let in by the complainant to show medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. He had not proved the fact that the opposite party instead of extracting two teeth had in fact extracted three teeth. No receipt or bill was produced to show that the opposite party had received an amount of Rs.4,500/-. But the opposite party had admitted that he had received an amount of Rs.2,500/- instead of Rs.4,500/-. The complainant has failed to prove the medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. In the light of the above observations complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of January 2017.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of doctor’s prescription of complainant dtd.24/5/14.
Ext.A2 - Photocopy of ultrasound report of the complainant (subject to proof)
PW1 – Dr.Jayakrishnan
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.B1 – Case sheet of complainant (original)
C1 series – Medical case record
Cost
No cost allowed
