Haryana

Ambala

CC/318/2016

Dr. Pawan Kumar Aryan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Registrar Dental Counsel of India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

            Complaint Case No.      : 318 of 2016.

Date of Institution         : 11.08.2016.

            Date of Decision            : 17.04.2018.

 

Dr.Pawan Kumar ‘Aryan’ s/o Sh.Khajan Singh r/o # 8, BBS Marg, Janetpur District Ambala.

……Complainant.

                                                                   Versus

 

1. Registrar, Dental Council of India, Aiwan- E-Galib Marg, Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New Delhi110002, India.
2. Dr.Chander M.Kakkar registration No.388-A;
3. Dr.Vinod Chandail, registration No.372-A;
4. Dr.Sumit Grover, registration No.A-2241;

All three respondent Nos. 2,3 & 4 working at Shivan Dental Dental, Implant and orthodontic Centers, 959-P, Preet Nagar, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt.133001.

 

                                                                   ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. Manpreet Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                   Sh. Adit Aggarwal, counsel for OP No.2.

                   Op Nos. 3 & 4 are exparte.

  

ORDER

 

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had sought dental management and checkup on12.07.2014 upto 26.08.2016 but he was subjected to unethical medical interventions. The Op Nos. 2 to 4 had implanted some structure inside the jaw and teeth which started creating a lot of pain and problems due to administration of injections and oral medicines by them. The complainant felt unusual type of symptoms in his body besides unexplainable body pain after the procedure done by Op Nos.2 to 4. The problem was reported to them in writing but they did not bother the same.   On 15.08.2014 the condition of the complainant got worsened besides breathlessness and restlessness, therefore, on 16.08.2014 he visited Op Nos. 2 to 4 but all fell on deaf ears.  The complainant had to fact such type of problems due to wrong and faulty diagnosis of Op Nos. 2 to 4 who are running their profession in connivance with each other. Due to these sufferings, the complainant had to visit several hospitals on 18.12.2015, 09.01.2016, 11.01.2016, 23.03.2016 and 03.06.2016   which added burden in the life of the complainant. The complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no avail. The Ops have failed to safeguard the interest of the complainant when expert support was needed from a medical practitioner. The OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant besides indulging in carelessness and profession misconduct. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.                On notice OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has submitted that it is having no concern with the complaint. The complainant has not made any complaint before it as per Section 21 of the Dentist Act, therefore, the answering OP Nos. 2 to 4 have been unnecessarily dragged in this litigation. Had the complainant had grievance he could have moved to State Dental Council and not to the Op No.1.         As per the Scheme of Dentist Act, 1948 and Revised Dentists Regulations, 2014, whenever there is a breach of code of Ethics, the aggrieved patient or the party can file a petition before the relevant Ethics Committee constituted by the State Dental Council and if the Dentist/Dental Surgeon is found to be negligent or guilty of committing professional misconduct the Dental Council may award punishment as deemed necessary but the complainant has not moved any such complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint have been made.

                   Op No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant had visited the Op No.2 on 12.07.2014 (wrongly written as 12.07.2017) for his tooth ailment and after oral examination, he was explained with details of disease, required treatment and number of visits required for treatment besides expense thereof. He was again visited Op No.2 on 16.07.2017  and after that he did not visit him and the present complaint after 24 months has been filed with ulterior motive to malign his reputation. Objections about limitation and cause of action have also been taken. Other contention have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the appearing Op No.2 has tendered affidavit Annexure RA. OP Nos. 3 & 4 did not appear before this Forum, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.09.2016.

3.                Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard besides going through the material available on the case file very carefully.

4.                We have perused the report of the Board constituted by CMO, Civil Hospital, Ambala regarding any negligence.

                   There are two points involved in this case.

1.           Whether the complaint is time barred or not?
2.           If the issue point is not decided affirmatively, then whether there    is any negligence on the part of the OP Nos. 2 to 4?

                    Now, we take up first issue. The complainant had firstly visited the Op No.2 for dental treatment on 12.07.2014  as mentioned in Annexure C1 wherein the doctor has prescribed medicines for five days. As per the version of the complainant he had taken the treatment from Op No.2 on 16.08.2014. In support of his contentions he drew the attention of this Forum towards the date (16.08.2014) written on the back of Annexure C1. Undoubtedly, this document has been left blank and the treating doctor has not further advised or written any prescription but it cannot be presumed that the complainant has taken the treatment from the treating doctor continuously upto 16.08.2014 but keeping in view the treatment record of the complainant qua visiting PGI Chandigarh on 12.02.2015 and Civil Hospital, Ambala City on 18.12.2015. The complainant has taken the treatment continuously for teeth problems, so this complaint is very much maintainable before this Forum being filed within prescribed period of two years.

                   Now, we are dealing with second point.

                    As per report Annexure C7, first left molar No.6 of lower jaw was missing and in this report it has been mentioned that Old Missing (Healthy Gums) lower molar is missing with healthy gums all the another condition of teeth were aged related of the patient habits and penal doctors have advised the patient to undergo the treatment for acidity control and to change the brushing habits. It was further advised to get the treatment for decay of teeth and the committee of penal doctors have also advised to the patient to get the missing tooth replaced. As per the report the doctors have not mentioned anything against the treating doctor. The complainant has not filed any objection against the report Annexure C7.  Though the complainant has taken the plea that his lower jaw/teeth No.6 was removed due to negligence of the treatment but this plea is also not sustainable in the eyes of law because the medical record allegedly produced by the complainant on the case file do not suggest that this lower jaw/teeth No.6 was removed after the treatment rather the record Annexure C7 show that it was Old missing (Healthy Gums). Moreover, there is nothing on the file to show that there was any professional misconduct on the part of treating doctor.  Even then we have also perused the treatment record from PGI, Chandigarh Annexure C3 as well as Civil Hospital, Ambala Annexure C4 wherein nothing has been mentioned that there was any medical negligence on the part of treating doctor.

                    Now, we are coming the point which related to above issue whether dental treatment affected the eye/vision of the complainant. We have perused the Annexure C8. Board of members in Annexure C8 gave the following report:

                   Presented in eye department with complaint of dental treatment done by private clinic about a year back following which he had a transient blurring of vision in left eye. Presently with headache off and own and a meshy?? Shadow before left eye.

          Ocular Examination NAD (No abnormality detected)                   Bilatrial arcus senilis present.

          Ocular alignemtn/movements NAD

          Pupils NSNR bilaterial symmetrical

          Slit Lamp Examination NAD

          Funds D/O NAD

          DV< 6/6 improves to 6/5 with + 0.25 DS BE

          NV  N6 Aided.

                    In view of the above report all parameters of the eye of the complainant had not shown any abnormality in the eye which could indicate that the allegedly dental treatment has affected the eye/vision. Both the reports Annexure C7 regarding Tooth alleged problems in gums as well as Annexure C8 regarding affecting the eyes due to dental treatment are speak that the problems allegedly depicted by the complainant are due to dental treatment.  Hence, we have no hitch to reach at a conclusion that the Op Nos.2 to 4 have ever done any professional misconduct. Rather the complainant has failed to explain as to why he remained mum for a longer period. The Op No.1 has been unnecessarily dragged in the present complaint. The complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, the present complaint deserves dismissal. It is ordered accordingly.  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:      17.04.2018

         

                        

                           

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)     (ANAMIKA GUPTA)      (D.N.ARORA)

MEMBER                                MEMBER                      PRESIDENT