Haryana

StateCommission

A/1009/2015

RAJ KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.SATYAWAN - Opp.Party(s)

TARUN GUPTA

17 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal    No  :  1009 of  2015

Date of Institution  :      26.11.2015    

Date of Decision    :      17.12.2015

  

Ram Kumar (since deceased) s/o Sh. Kanhiya, now represented by Surender s/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Resident of Village Khurana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Dr. Satyawan Dhanda, clinic/resident of Village Khurana (near Khera), Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                      Respondent/Opposite Party

2.      Smt. Bimla wife of late Ram Kumar

3.      Balinder s/o Sh. Ram Kumar

4.      Rajesh s/o Sh. Ram Kumar

5.      Salindro d/o Sh. Ram Kumar, All Residents of Village Khurana, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

Respondents/Complainants

CORAM:

                             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                                          

Present:               Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate for appellant.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 11^th May, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby complaint No.98 of 2012 was dismissed.

2.      Raj Kumar (since deceased)-father of complainant/appellant, suffered pain in his molar tooth of right upper jaw. He got him examined from Dr. Satyawan Dhanda-Opposite Party/respondent No.1, in November, 2011. After examination, the tooth was extracted. It was alleged that due to wrong treatment given by the respondent No.1, the patient (deceased) developed cancer in his jaw and died. The complainants sought compensation for the alleged act of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1.

3.      The respondent No.1 denied the allegations of the complainants. It was stated that he never practiced as a dentist nor ever treated the deceased, as alleged.

4.      From Exhibit C-18 it was established on the record that the deceased was addicted to Bidi (smoking) for the last 10-15 years and suffered from ulcer in oral cavity. He was clinically diagnosed as a patient of cancer maxilla with critical stage T4 NO MO (stage-IV). Growth of ulcer had crossed mid line and destroyed adjoining bones and pterygold muscles. Floor of right orbit was also destroyed and orbital fat was also involved.  

5.      No evidence contrary to the above was produced by the complainant to substantiate that the respondent No.1 (opposite party) ever extracted tooth of the deceased. Even if presuming it to be true that the tooth was extracted, yet as per own case of the complainants, the deceased was suffering from cancer of mouth. The allegation of the complainants that the cancer developed after extracting the tooth has not been substantiated by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. So, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew (Dr.) State of Punjab, 2005(2) C.P.C.  515 and Indian Medical Association versus Dr. V.P. Shantha, 1995(2) C.P.C. 602 (SC).  

6.      Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Announced 17.12.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL