Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/164/2017

S.Ramesh, R.Ashwanth - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Vasan Dental Care, Vasan Dental Hospital Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

K.Muthamil Raja

09 May 2022

ORDER

                                                                                             Date of Complaint Filed : 11.05.2017                                                                   

                                                                                              Date of Reservation      : 25.04.2022                                                                    

                                                                                              Date of Order               : 09.05.2022                                                                                                                                            

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:   TMT. B JIJAA, M.L.,                                                     : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                     :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,              :  MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.164/2017

MONDAY, THE9^th DAY OF MAY 2022

1.S. Ramesh,

   S/o S.Santhanam,

                                                               

2.R. Ashwanth,

   S/o S. Ramesh,

 

   Both are residing at

   No.B-5, 1^st floor, Namashivayam Apartments,

   22^nd East Street, Kamaraj Nagar,

   Thiruvanmiyur,

   Chennai – 600 041.                                                                                                                   ... Complainants 

 

..Versus..

 

1.Vasan Dental Care

   VASAN DENTAL HOSPITALS (P) LTD

   Rep by its Manager Administration

   New No.163 and 164, Plot No.576B, Old No.153,

   L.B. Road, Adyar,

   Chennai – 600 020.

 

2.Deepam Hospitals,

   Rep by its Manager Administration,

   No.107-A GST Road, Chromepet,

   Chennai – 600 044.                                                                                                                       ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainants         : M/s. K. Muthamil Raja

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.       The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the Complainants towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainants and direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.3,80,979/- towards refund of the expenses incurred by the Complainants along with cost of the complaint.

2.     The complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments.   On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A33                                                                                                                                                                      were marked. 

3.     In spite of receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have not appeared before this Commission and hence, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 were called absent and set Ex-parte.

4.     The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The 1^st Complainant is the father of the second Complainant. The 2^nd Complainant is a college student studying 3^rd year B.E (Automobile) course in Rajalakshmi Engineering College, Thandalam, Chennai.  The 2^nd Complainant had lower jaw projecting out than the upper jaw which was in the inner position and the arrangement of the teeth was very uneven with gaps owing to improper growth thereby he was having difficulty in biting solid diet. In order to correct this deformity of his son, the 1^st Complainant approached 1^st Opposite Party for taking treatment. The 2^nd Complainant was examined and was advised that his son has to finally undergo surgery for jaw correction at the end of the treatment. The surgery to 2^nd Complainant was performed by 2^nd Opposite Party at their Hospital on 18.06.2015 for LEFORT I ADVANCEMENT AND BSSO SETBACK WITH diagnosis as CLASS III MALOCCULUSION by team of Doctors consisting of Dr.Satish, Dr.Suresh Kumar and Dr. Venkataraman. The 2^nd Complainant had remained in the hospital for post operative care and was discharged on 23.06.2015. The 1^st Complainant had incurred an expenditure for an amount of Rs.2,29,750/- for the treatment procedures, lab test, surgery and medicines, hospital expenses etc.,. The said amount also includes fees for the surgeon and the anesthetist for which no bill was submitted. Thereafter the 2^nd complainant was advised rest for which 31 days from the date of surgery up to 18.07.2015, during the above said period he could not attend college and was only on liquid diet for some time. The 2^nd Complainant was under the impression that his deformity has been corrected fully. He had visited 1^st Opposite Party for post operative review/check up. But he was not feeling comfortable in biting/chewing food with his teeth. On successive post check up and on noticing his discomfort, the consulting dentist had suggested for one more surgery for further correction. They were not satisfied with the post operative check up by the 1^st Opposite Parties and suggestion for another surgery. The 1^st Complainant in order to protect the future life and safety of his son and to avoid further complications sought an opinion of another dentist by name Dr. Ananthanarayanan, a consultant Oral and Mazilofacial Surgeon, having Anantan Dental Surgery Clinic situated at Af 39, Plot No.2237, 6^th Street, 11^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai -600 040 on 2^nd Complainant’s pre-treatment and the surgery performed. The Doctor has opined that the earlier surgery was not performed to its fullest potential and not completely corrected as desired. The Opposite Parties had not rendered full justice to the profession which left the Complainants in a disturbed state of mind and leading to mental agony for not getting the desired result after spending time and money on the earlier surgery. As a result of the surgery the 2^nd Complainant had to be absent from college thereby missed classes and studies for some days and also affected his day to day life. Once again the 2^nd Complainant underwent treatment under     Dr. Ananthanarayanan who promised to rectify the earlier undone procedure in the best possible manner and to the fullest satisfaction. Once again surgery was recommended and 2^nd Complainant got admitted in the MEDWAY HOSPITAL. The surgery was performed on that day itself for second time with diagnosis as Secondary dentofacial deformity under the procedure LEFORT-I/OSTEOTOMY by team of DENTIST VIZ., Dr. T.Palaniappan and Dr. Anathanarayanan. The 2^nd Complainant was discharged the very next day on 29.12.2016. The total expenditure incurred for the surgery, medicines, other treatment and hospital charges was Rs.1,02,229/- which includes fees for the anesthetist. Owing to two surgeries the 2^nd Complainant had undergone jaw pains, sufferings and mental agony. It was a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in respect of the 1^st surgery done by them. Even now the 2^ndOpposite Party had underwent further treatment namely Crown dentures and root canal during March 2017 for which he as to spend as final procedure Rs.49,000/-. The Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation and refund the expenses incurred by the Complainants. Though the damages caused to the 2^nd Complainant could not be compensated by money, for the purpose of this complaint and for the payment of court fee the Complainants restricted his claim to Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation. Since the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service they have to refund the expenses incurred by the Complainants ie.,Rs.2,29,750/- + Rs.1,02,229/- + Rs.49,000/- totally Rs3,80,979/-. Aggrieved against the deficiency of service committed by the Opposite Parties the 1^st Complainant sent legal notice on 23.03.2017, the Opposite Parties failed to send reply to the legal notice. The Complainants have no other option except to approach this Hon’ble Commission for redressal. Hence this complaint.

5.      The Points for consideration are:-

1.     Whether there is a medical negligence committed by the opposite parties as against the complainant? 

2.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed in the complaint?

4.     To what relief, the complaint is entitled?

6.      Point No.1:-

The 2^nd Complainant had lower jaw problem owing to improper growth of teeth, thereby he was having difficulty in biting solid diet. In order to correct this deformity the 1^st Complainant approached 1^st Opposite Party Hospital for taking treatment for his son, the 2^nd Complainant. The 2^nd Complainant was examined and was advised to undergo surgery for jaw correction by the 2^nd Opposite Party. As per Ex.A 20, the2^nd Complainant was admitted on 17.06.2015 as a case of CLASS III MALOCCLUSION for the forwardly placed lower front teeth and the 2^nd Opposite Party has performed surgery LEFORT I ADVANCEMENT AND BSSO SETBACK at their Hospital on 18.06.2015 and was discharged on 23.06.2015.

The contention of the Complainants was that they were under the impression that deformity of the 2^nd Complainant has been corrected fully.  However, again the 2^nd Complainant was not feeling comfortable in biting/chewing food with his teeth. On successive post check up the consulting dentist had suggested for another surgery. The 1^st Complainant sought an opinion of another dentist by name Dr. Ananthanarayanan, a consultant Oral and Mazilofacial Surgeon, who opined that the earlier surgery was not performed to its fullest potential and not completely corrected as desired.

It is found in Ex.A 28, that the 2^nd Complainant was diagnosed for Secondary Dentofacial Deformity and another surgery was performed on 28.12.2016 adopting the

“PROCEDURE : LEFORE-I OSTETOMY

Under GA Nasal Intubation done

Throat packed

Bilateral infra orbital nerve block given with 2% Lignocaine with

Adrenaline 1:80,000.

Vestibunal incision place from 16 & 26.

Mucoperiosteal flap raise.

Granular plated removed (Implant from previous surgery).

Lefort-I Osteotomy done.

Maxilla depunctured and advanced for 5 mm and dearranged for 3mm

Biome Titanium plates fixed – 1L & 1L plate with long gap in the

Lateral pyriform region with 2x5mm-screw(5Nos) and 2x7mm(3 nos).

Hilas crunching done, Septal stitch further.

Wound closed with 3-0 vicryl”.

 

The Opposite parties have not efficiently corrected the dento facial deformity in one surgery which was performed on 18.06.2015 which resulted in the performance of another surgery on 28.12.2016 for the same complication which had arisen prior to the first surgery. It is evident from Ex.A 28 that a secondary dento facial surgery has been performed on the 2^nd Complainant. In this case, the opposite party have not filed Written Version or produced evidence on their side. Hence this Commission is inclined to observe that there was medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

7.      Point No.2:-

On perusal of Ex.A 20 it is found that the 2^nd Complainant was given treatment by the Opposite Parties from 17.06.2015 to 23.06.2015, wherein on 18.06.2015 Dento facial surgery was performed on the 2^nd Complainant by the Opposite parties. Exs.A 2 to A 19 are the bills towards the expenditure incurred for the said surgery performed by the Opposite Parties. Though Ex.A-1 is the advance receipt issued by the 1^st Opposite Party in the name of the 2^nd Complainant, the date is more than one year prior to the first surgery and the Patient ID is also different compared to other Exhibits. As per Ex.A 28, the 2^nd Complainant had underwent Secondary Dento facial surgery on 28.12.2016 and Exs 21 to 27 are the bills towards the second surgery performed on the 2^nd Complainant. The 2^nd Complaint had to undergo same Dento facial Surgery for the second time would show that the first surgery was not performed in a proper manner which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties which resulting in mental agony and monetary loss to the Complainant. In view of the above discussions the Opposite Parties are held to have committed deficiency of service. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

8.      Point Nos.3 and 4 :-

In view of the discussions above, the Opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.67,615/- towards the refund of expenses incurred as found in Exs. A-2 to Ex.A19 and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost. Accordingly Point No.3 and 4 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part, the Opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh Only) towards mental agony and pains suffered by the Complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.67,615/- (Rupees Sixty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifteen Only) towards the refund of expenses incurred and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost, within 8 weeks from the date of this Order, failing which the above sums shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of this Order till date of realization.

In the result the complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the  9^th day of May 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN        T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                  B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                                     PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1	29.03.2014	Advance receipt issued by the 1st Opposite Party for Rs.1,00,000/-.
Ex.A2	14.06.2015	Cash bill issued by BEST Diagno Lab for Rs.2,650/-
Ex.A3	16.06.2015	Bill cum receipt issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.390/-.
Ex.A4	17.06.2015	Receipt issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for admission
Ex.A5	18.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.996/-
Ex.A6	18.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.2,644.50/-
Ex.A7	18.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party forRs.150.50/-
Ex.A8	19.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.664/-
Ex.A9	19.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.156/-
Ex.A10	19.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.12,919/-
Ex.A11	19.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for   Rs.935.50/-
Ex.A12	20.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.193/-
Ex.A13	20.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.10,000/-
Ex.A14	20.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.315/-
Ex.A15	21.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.135/-
Ex.A16	21.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.404.50/-
Ex.A17	22.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.213.50/-
Ex.A18	23.06.2015	Cash bill issued by the 2nd Opposite Party for Rs.233.50/-
Ex.A19	23.06.2015	Receipt for Rs.34,750/- issued by the 2nd Opposite Party towards final settlement
Ex.A20	23.06.2015	Discharge summary issued by the 2nd Opposite Party
Ex.A21	27.12.2016	Service bill issued by Medway Hospitals for Rs.3,780/-
Ex.A22	28.12.2016	Bill issued by  -do- for Rs.2025/-
Ex.A23	28.12.2016	Bill issued by  -do- for Rs.2637/-
Ex.A24	29.12.2016	Bill issued by  -do- for Rs.4615/-
Ex.A25	29.12.2016	Bill issued by  -do- for Rs.271/-
Ex.A26	29.12.2016	Bill issued by  -do- for Rs.295.70/-
Ex.A27	29.12.2016	Bill issued by  -do- for Rs.75215/-
Ex.A28	29.12.2016	Discharge summary issued by the Medway Hospitals
Ex.A29	23.03.2017	Legal notice issued by the first Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A30	27.03.2017	Acknowledgement card from the 1stOppsoite Party
Ex.A31	27.03.2017	Acknowledgement card from the 1stOppsoite Party
Ex.A32	18.03.2017	Bill for Crown (Zircon) and RCT for Rs.49,000/-
Ex.A33	-	Statement to total expenditure incurred by the Complainants

               

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                  B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT