Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 472.
Instituted on : 17.08.2017.
Decided on : 04.09.2019.
Rajender Shridhar s/o Sh. Hari Chand Shridhar resident of H.No.1, New Colony Extension , Palwal, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Pt.B.D.Sharma, P.G.I.M.S, Rohtak, through its Director Principal Dental College.
- Dr. Anshul Chugh, Professor, Dental Department, Pt. B.D.Sharma, P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak.
- Dr.Manisha Kukreja, Professor Orthodontics, Dental Department., Pt.B.D.Sharma. PGIMS, Rohtak.
- Dr. Rangesing Rathwa, Dental Department, Pt.B.D.Sharma, P.G.I.M.S., Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Ranvir Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Surender Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.1 to 3.
Opposite party no.4 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2015 complainant went for his dental/four new teeth implant treatment to opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.2 demanded Rs.15000/- per implant from the complainant as illegal and wrongful gratification. That complainant paid OPD charges to opposite party No.1. That in the year 2016 opposite party No.1 & 2 conducted CBCT test of complainant through CBCT department of teeth and complainant paid Rs.500/- for the same to opposite party No.1. That on 20.09.2016 opposite party No.2 through his assistant opposite party No.4 took illegal gratification of Rs.14000/- from complainant for said treatment in cash. That opposite party no.4 prescribed certain medicines and material of surgery and complainant purchased the same from outside private medical store and gave it to opposite party No.4. Thereafter, 4 implants were inserted in the jaws of the complainant on 20.09.2016 by opposite party No.4 under the directions and supervision of opposite party No.2. That on 16.11.2016 second stage of surgery i.e. healing screw placed was conducted on complainant by opposite party No.4 under direction and supervision of opposite party No.2. That thereafter, complainant has problem teeth grinding while sleeping and on 07.12.2016, opposite party no.3 prescribed for Night Guard sheet of 3mm from outside PGIMS. Complainant purchased the same and gave it to opposite party No.3 but opposite party no.3 kept the same with herself and tried to give a damaged and defective and under sized of 1mm night guard. Complainant reported the matter to opposite party no.1 and OP No.3 give said damaged and defective set to the complainant. That in the month of December 2016, opposite party no.4 demanded Rs.8000/- from the complainant and took Rs.4000/- as cash and wrote his account number on a slip and asked the complainant to deposit remaining amount of Rs.4000/- in his account. Complainant deposited Rs.4000/- in the alleged account of opposite party No.4. That on 23.12.2016 due instigation OP No.3, OP no.4 tried to place teeth to complainant without abutment and tried to take out implant of the complainant. That OP No.4 got loosened healing screws through his assistant which caused heavy infection for 2 months. Complainant asked OPs to rectify the wrong done on the teeth of complainant and to pay damages to complainant but to no effect. That OPs committed wrongful act and provided deficient services to the complainant. That implant was made by OPs without planning and under pressure, the opposite party No.4 got it written from complainant to get teeth implant before time. That in March 2016, O.P. No.2 gave abutment to the complainant and asked complainant to take treatment from somewhere else. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to cure the complainant and to implant four new teeth of the complainant and to refund balance amount of the complainant and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1800000/- for causing loss, mental and financial agony and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite party No.1 to 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that O.P.No.1 & 2 never demanded Rs.15000/- as illegal gratification or for any purpose from the complainant. That it has been clearly written on the notice board that if anybody demands any illegal gratification from any patient or the person, complaint may be made to the director of the Institution immediately. On merits, it is submitted that opposite party No.1 and 2 have not treated this patient and never demanded any money and the complainant never paid any OPD charges to opposite party No.1. That opposite party No.4 was a PG student of opposite party No.1 and dealing, if any, was there between complainant and opposite party No.4. No complaint was filed by the complainant in respect of opposite party No.4 to the authority regarding alleged demands. Patient was not asked to buy any medicine or material for surgery from outside. Only four implants were purchased from outside because implant and supporting equipments were not available in the department. That there was no nexus between opposite party No.1 to 3 & 4 regarding any dealing between complainant and opposite party no.4 No written complaint was ever filed by the complainant against OP No.4 regarding demand of money. That complainant was already wearing some appliance which he had purchased from outside in 2015 which got worn out so the complainant wanted a new similar appliance. The complainant told that he had purchased the same from outside. So he will bring this sheet and kindly get the appliance fabricated. An intern was asked to take the impression and in the meantime the complainant got the material from outside. The bioplast sheet was kept on the biostar machine and the split was fabricated and after finishing, it was delivered to the complainant. That complainant has twisted the facts concealing the truths. That complainant created so nuisance with the bearer of the department and it had to call security to manage the patient. He was shouting that his sheet has been damaged by us and complainant don’t want the treatment to be one so this appliance was kept and he was given Rs.270/-. That as per instructions of OP No.1, dated 08.12.2016, the patient was delivered the appliance and the entry was done in the card and the patient went away and never reported back in the department. That the treatment has been planned as conventional procedure. The implants have been successfully placed, as they can be checked in X-ray. That complainant quarreled with OP No.4 as well as faculty and forced OP No.4 to do the artificial tooth replacement treatment before the appropriate time. So the allegations of the complainant are false. That no teeth can be placed without abutment and the complainant was not following instructions for maintenance of implants and not maintaining proper oral hygiene inspite of continuous reinforcement for the same. That there is no negligence on the part of treating doctors and as such it is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs. However, opposite party No.4 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.09.2017 of this Forum.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C45 and has closed his evidence on dated 23.07.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 to 3 in their evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and closed his evidence on dated 25.09.2018.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present complaint, the contention of the complainant is that opposite parties have given a wrongful teeth implant treatment to the complainant but to prove the same, complainant has not placed on record any expert opinion. However, this forum vide order dated 12.02.2019 directed Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh to construe a board of doctors to establish the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in giving teeth implant treatment to the complainant and the said board submitted his report dated 15.03.2019 as per which, there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties. Opposite parties filed revision against this order and the order dated 12.02.2019 of this Forum was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana Panchkula vide its order dated 14.03.2019. Hence the alleged report cannot be considered. But the documents placed on record by the complainant does not prove negligence on the part of opposite parties. The audio CD placed on record by the complainant Ex.C17 is related to transfer of some amount and other communication and are not related to any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. If there was any question of illegal gratification or transfer of amount to the opposite parties, the complainant should have approach the police station or the higher authorities of opposite parties as this matter does not relate to this Forum. Hence from the documents placed on record it is observed that mere allegations cannot be relied upon unless they are corroborated with evidential value to conclude that there is deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.09.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………….
Ved Pal, Member
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
