DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.257/2012
G.Hema Gowri
D/o Sh.P. Govind Raj
C/o Jaswanth Singh Tokas
R/o A-216,1st floor, Munirka
New Delhi-110067 ….Complainant
Versus
Dr. K. Venkatesh, BDS
Prudent Smile’s Dental Clinic
472/A, 1st floor
Near Daya Memorial Hospital
Munirka, New Delhi.
… …Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 17.05.12 Date of Order : 02.11.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that on 18.04.2010 she was suffering from sensation and pain in her first molar upper teeth in right side and visited OP clinic for treatment. She enquired about Dr. Venkatesh, the staff of the OP’s clinic stated that he is the Head of the clinic and not come today. On the advice of junior staff, she agreed to get examine from the junior doctor. She was advised for root cannel for 2nd molar upper teeth right side to solve her problem. The doctor told her that the root cannel will take 3 sittings and she has to Pay Rs.1500/- for cure her teeth problem and she paid Rs.1000/- to the receptionist on 20.04.2010. She visited the OP’s clinic where the doctor examined her personally and advice her that the root cannel is not possible and finalized to crown bridging for 2nd and 3rd upper molar teeth. He showed various models on crown bridge to her and she selected the model which costs Rs.6000/- and she made the balance payment of Rs.5000/- to the OP for the cost of crown. The OP started the treatment on 25.04.2010 and she informed the doctor regarding the impact of sedative medicine during her past medical treatment, the OP assured her to take precautions to this effect. After three sitting the measurement of crown bridge accordance with her teeth and the OP advice her to come after 3-4 days for fixing for the same. The OP had stated that within 3 months they will fix original model. On 29.04.2010, she felt pain in her teeth. She visited OP’s clinic but the doctor was absent and the junior doctor prescribed the medicine and he also advised her not to try capping treatment for all teeth and suggested her to visit Maulana Azad Dental College for the second opinion. On 03.05.2010, she received the call from OP for fixing the temporary metallic crown bridge. On 10.05.2010, the OP fixed the metallic crown bridge. On 12.05.2010, she visited the OP clinic because there was a severe pain in her uppers right teeth. On 18.05.2010 she received a phone call from the OP where she was advised for full capping of the teeth. The OP planned to replace the metallic and again took the measurement of dental structure. On 01.06.2010, the OP fixed new model of crown on her teeth and informed her that it is a temporary fixing and within 2-3 days they will fixed it permanently. She informed the OP regarding discomfort because of new crown bridge . On 04.06.2010 she visited the OP clinic for permanent fixing of the crown bridge, the OP tried to remove the crown But failed in removing the same. On 24.08.2010 when the discomfort in the teeth increased, she visited AIIMS Hospital for second opinion regarding the continuous dental pain. The doctor of AIIMS suggested that the fixing of crown was faulty and fabricated and it is required to be removed. In the first week of September 2010, she visited the OP’s clinic and showed the report of AIIMS, New Delhi and requested the OP to remove the faulty/ fabricated crown bridge as she was suffering from severe pain. The OP reacted badly and stated that he cannot rely on the report of the doctors of AIIMS Hospital and also stated that she has to get a certified copy of report from the HOD of dental department, AIIMS Hospital and disclosed the name of doctor so he can make a complaint against the doctor as his brother is senior doctor in the AIIMS Hospital. On 09.10.2010, she visited Maulana Azad Dental College, regarding the opinion. The doctor of the Maulana Azad College gave the same opinion that the fixation of crownbridge is faulty and fabricated. She sent a complaint on 16.09.2010 to the Secretary of Dental Council. On 05.10.2010, she received a reply from Secretary, Dental Council of India to approach the concerned State Dental Council from where the OP have been given license for practice. On 20.10.2010, she filed a written complain to the SHO, PS, Vasant Vihar against the OP as the OP was extending the threats to her on mobile phone. On 25.10.2010, she made the complaint to Tamil Nadu State Dental Council. On 24.03.2011, she received a mail from Inquiry Committee, Tamil Nadu Govt. Dental college and Hospital to appear before the committee on 02.04.2011. On 02.04.2011, she appeared before the inquiry committee but the OP was absent and the inquiry committee proceeded ex- party against the OP. On 26.04.2011 she received phone call from OP clinic and the person on the other side started abusing her. On 04.11.2011 she filed an application under RTI Act 2005 for seeking report of the inquiry committee. She received a reply form Tamil Nadu Dental Council where it was specifically mentioned that the genuine dental problem of the complainant was not addressed it was observed that inserted metal ceramic bridge was not only faulty but also not indicated for the given nature of bone loss as evident from the panoramic radiographs. Complainant has stated that she is a freelance author and because of wrong treatment she had to suffer for more than 1 year and could not do her job properly during that period. Hence, pleading medical negligence on the part of the OP the complaint has been filed with the following prayers:
- to direct the OP to compensate a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lack only) to the complainant for committing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and torture financial loss to the Complainant the complaint.
- to direct the OP to pay an amount of 50,000/- as legal expenses to the complainant.
Complainant filed her affidavit in exparte evidence.
On 13.03.2013, Sh. Mayil Samy Adv. for the OP had appeared and copy of the complaint was supplied to him and the case was adjourned to 22.04.13. On 22.04.13, when no one appeared on behalf of the OP at the second call given at 1:15 p.m. the OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.04.13 passed by our predecessors. Thereafter, on 27.03.15 a true copy of the order dated 27.01.15 was filed on behalf of the OP whereby the Hon’ble State Commission set aside the exparte order subject to payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs to the Complainant. The matter was adjourned to 15.07.15 for payment of cost and filing written statement. On 15.07.15, when no one appeared on behalf of the OP to pay the cost of Rs.7,000/- and file written statement and again the OP was proceeded exparte on 15.07.15.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence.
We have heard the Complainant and also have gone through the file very carefully.
OP has the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but has not chosen to contest it.
It is evident from the record that the Complainant visited the OP for treatment. When she was not satisfied with the treatment from the OP she visited the AIIMS hospital on 24.08.10 (copy Annexure CW-1/B2). She again visited the Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Science on 10.09.10 (copy Annexure CW-1/C1). The Complainant filed the complaint before the Dental Council of India vide letter dated 17.01.2011 (copy Annexure CW-1/E). The Dental Council of India vide letter dated 08.10.10 informed the Complainant that since the matter comes under the purview of State Dental Council and therefore she can take up matter with the State Council. The Complainant vide letter dated 17.09.10 (copy Annexure CW-1/F) filed a complaint against the OP. Delhi State Dental Council vide letter dated 05.10.10 (copy Annexure CW-1/F) informed the Complainant that the OP is not registered with Delhi Dental Council as such they cannot issue a warning letter to the OP. The Complainant filed a complaint to the Tamil Nadu Dental Council. The Tamil Nadu Dental Council vide letter dated 06.06.11 (copy Annexure CW-1/1) has stated as follows:-
“…….based on the in-camera enquiry of Dr. Venkatesh on 02-05-2011, and corroboration of available records, examinations of the patient by us and enquiry of Ms. Heema Gowri on 02-04-2011, it is evident that Venkatesh is unable to coherently provide information pertaining to the patient case (Hema Gowri), except to state that he was responsible only for the crown reduction work. However, as dr. Venkatesh being the employer of the clinic and thereby assume the role of senior dentist among his employees, he should have taken part in the entire decision making and seen to that the patient’s primary problem was addressed. But, this was not the case since the restoration that was provided to the patient is a metal-ceramic crown, which is normally considered as a permanent restoration in a sound periodontal condition. Furthermore, the metal-ceramic crowns are faulty fabricated, with crowns having opening margins and over contoured, as well as inappropriate occlusal contract. It may be noted that a similar observations were also made in AIIMS and Maulana Azad Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi………”
It is evident from the record that the OP had appeared before the Tamil Nadu Dental Council for enquiry. As per enquiry report it is clear that the metal ceramic crowns was faulty, fabricated with crowns having opening margins and over contoured, as well as inappropriate occlusal contract and the same observations were also taken in the aforesaid reports.
Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the Complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Complainant. Therefore, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service and medical negligence.
We allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.2 lacs in lumpsum for causing mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs.6% per annum on the amount of Rs.2 lacs from the date of this order till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 02.11.2016
