Delhi

East Delhi

CC/465/2015

RANJEET - Complainant(s)

Versus

LALIT DENTAL - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 465/2015

 

	Smt. Ranjeet Kaur W/o Shri Saranjeet Singh R/o H.No.264, Gagan Vihar Delhi – 110051.	….Complainant
Versus
1.     2.	Dr. Lalit (Dental Surgeon) BDS, MIDA.   Dr. Harshit (Dental Surdeon) BDS, MIDA   BOTH ADDRESSES:- Health Smile Implant and Orthodontist 3/129, J. Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi - 110092.	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 01.07.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 07.06.2023

Judgment Passed on: 07.06.2023

               

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. By this order the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant with respect to alleged deficiency in Dental Medical treatment the complainant.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant had certain problems in her teeth and she went to OPs Dental Centre for treatment where both the OPs met her and examined her and advised that first two teeth would be removed and root canal covering other two teeth is necessary and also informed her that other artificial teeth will be fixed in the gums of the complainant. She was given life time guarantee of the treatment. The OPs did the treatment and two teeth were removed for root canal and covering was done and even other two artificial teeth were fixed and OPs charged Rs. 50000/- for all these treatment. However, all the teeth of the complainant fell within 6-7 months and when she went again to the  dental care centre of OPs and told both the OPs with respect to their assurances but instead of treating her, the OPs started using bad language and even threatened her that if the complainant would visit again her legs would be broken. Stating all these fact it is inter-alia alleged that it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OPs which has caused mental and physical torture upon the complainant and as such she was compelled to have treatment from another doctor where she spent Rs.150000/- and then she has filed the present claim thereby claiming Rs.485000/- from the OPs towards mental and physical torture and harassment by the OPs and Rs.15000/- towards Litigation Charges.
3. Before issuing notice to the OPs the Ld. Predecessor had sent the matter to the Medical Superintendent of Maullana Azad Institute and Dental Science, MAMC for seeking medical opinion of the report was received vide order dated 17.07.2017. The report reads as follows:

 

The complainant failed to submit the relevant documents and pleaded that the same are not available with her. Another opportunity was afforded to her to submit the documents on 28.01.2016 vide letter No. MAIDS/8868 dated 22.01.2016. She again failed to produce these documents. The committee also carried out clinical oral examination of the complainant and also after perusing the records whatever was made available by her, concluded its findings as under:

The bridge was delivered to the patient with respect to missing teeth 44, 45, 46, 47 and the bridge was given using tooth No.42, 43 and 48 as a support. It has dislodged subsequently.

Two more bridges were delivered in relation to missing teeth in upper right & upper left segment which are working well. The bridge is in functional state and the surrounding gums are very healthy. Therefore three bridges were given to the patient by the doctor from where the treatment was given to the patient by the doctor. Out of three bridges one has come out and two are functioning well. The complication like a bridge getting dislodged can occur in some situations and management can be done to solve the problem.

In the absence of papers mentioned above the committee cannot give clear cut expert opinion.

4. The report is submitted by Dr. Sarika Chaudhary, Assoc. Prof. MAIDS, Dr. Shubra Gill, Assoc. Prof. MAIDS and Dr. Khushboo Singh, Senior Resident, MAIDS.
5. After receiving the report this court passed order on 11.07.2017.

 

Report of committee filed. It has been noticed from the report that the complainant has not provided the relevant documents which were required to examine and filing the expert opinion. The committee expressed inability to give any expert opinion in the absence of such documents. Counsel for complainant stated that he does not have the document demanded by committee as the doctor who treated the complainant destroyed all the documents. In these circumstances, notice be issued to OP for 16.11.2017.

6. Further, when the report was received from MAIDS, the copy of the same was given to counsel for complainant who has filed his reply which would be considered hereinafter.
7. Accordingly, the notice was issued to the OPs and OPs were initially un-served but subsequently served by way of publication and vide order dated 17.12.2018 both the OPs were proceeded ex-parte. Complainant has filed her ex-parte evidence, the Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. Keeping in view the fact, that there is no opinion of any expert with respect to any medical negligence, while treating the complainant the argument were heard and it is clear that the complainant has not been able to establish as to whether there was any medical negligence on the part of OPs. Not only this in the entire complaint it is not mentioned as to when the complainant had gone for treatment to the OPs, as no date at all is mentioned in the complaint. Therefore it cannot be ascertained that when this treatment might have started and when it completed. One prescription of OP has been filed but even that does not bear any date. One complaint as it was filed before SHO is on record and in that complaint also, it is not mentioned as to when the treatment was started and when the treatment was completed. DD No. 10A was written by the police which is dated 03.05.2015. Therefore it cannot be ascertained as to when the complainant  has started taking the treatment.
9. Further, complainant claims that OP have charged Rs.50000/- from the complainant for her treatment. No receipt of such payment has been placed on record. The Commission has enquired from the complainant as  to how in absence of any payment of consideration, she will prove that she was a consumer as the definition of consumer is defined under section 2(7) is quite specific as read as under:

 

2(7) "consumer" means any person who

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

10. Therefore, in absence of any proof of having paid any consideration, the complainant otherwise does not qualify to be a consumer within the definition of consumer.
11. Now coming to the reply filed by the complainant to the opinion of MAIDS. It is stated that the document which were sought by the committee were with her but when she reached the clinic of the OPs regarding her problem, the OP took all the documents from the complainant and torn off the all such papers. This assertion of the complainant as mentioned in the reply to the report of expert was not mentioned by the complainant in the complaint case filed before this Commission and not only this, when the complainant made a complaint at police station on 03.05.2015 she did not disclose this fact even in her that complaint written to SHO. Therefore these facts appear to be an afterthought.
12. Keeping all this facts in view and the circumstances the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant has not been able to prove as to when she took the treatment and by which document she paid consideration and how in absence of any medical opinion for want of documents, the OP’s were deficient in providing the service to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
13. Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 07.06.2023.