DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint No. 570
Instituted on: 22.09.2016
Decided on: 17.02.2017
Jagdeep Singh @ Jaggi son of Shri Bansi Lal, resident of Ward No.10, Himmatpura Mohalla, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.
…. Complainant
Versus
Sidhu Dental Clinic, C/O S. Sewa Singh Sidhu Medical Hall, Sangrur Road, Dhuri through Dr. Daljit Kaur.
….Opposite party
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Shri G.S.Chatha, Advocate
FOR OPP. PARTY : Shri Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
ORDER BY:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Jagdeep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that on 6.5.2016 the complainant was suffering from the tooth ache as such he approached the OP for treatment and after thorough inspection the OP suggested the complainant to install a cap on the pain teeth. As such, the complainant prepared his mind to get the cap installed on the teeth and as such the OP demanded Rs.3000/- for the same. The complainant paid Rs.1000/- as advance on 6.5.2016. Further case of the complainant is that after some days the complainant again suffered pain in his teeth and swelling on the jaw and as such the complainant approached the OP immediately and the Op prescribed some pain killer medicine and he suffered again the same problem. It is further averred that the teeth pain was not controlled despite consuming of medicine and on 28.5.2016 the complainant again approached the OP and the OP reinstalled a new cap and charged Rs.1500/- from the complainant. Further case of the complainant is that due to his severe pain in the teeth, the complainant approached to another doctor i.e. Garg Dental Care Dhuri and after the thorough inspection that the cap installed by the OP was not proper and the internal teeth has not been diagnosed due to that reason, the complainant is suffering from pain. As such, the complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OP, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and further claimed compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.
2. In reply filed by OP, it is denied that the complainant ever approached the OP On 6.5.2016 with the complaint of pain in tooth and further it is denied that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1000/- to the OP or that the cap was ever installed on 6.5.2016. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied in toto. However, the case of the Op is that the complainant approached the OP on 28.5.2016 and stated that on the upper left first incisor (tooth) has pain as it was wrapped with crown without RCT and on 26.5.2016 x-ray of the said tooth was done by Garg Dental Clinic, Dhuri on the advice of Bansal Dental Clinic and after watching x-ray report, the said tooth was extracted by Dr. Bansal of Bansal Dental Clinic, Dhuri. Further case of the OP is that the complainant took the advice of the OP for installation of cap/crown on empty area of upper left first socket of incisor and the Op advised that cap/crown cannot be fitted in the socket, in the absence of tooth and she suggested the complainant to install the bridge of three tooth i.e. right and left teeth of empty socket by wrapped with cap and centre of socket be wrapped with artificial tooth and cap. As such, the complainant agreed to get installed the bridge and he also agreed to pay a consideration of Rs.3000/- for the same including consultation fee and medicine etc. The OP gave medicine for healing socket to the complainant and took the initial size for preparing bridge and told the complainant to come after one week as the socket will take time for healing and thereafter, the cutting of right and left teeth of blanket socket will be made. The complainant paid Rs.1500/- as material charges of bridge, consultation fee and medicine and the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1500/- as balance amount on the day of cutting of teeth. It is further stated that after a week, the complainant again approached the Op for getting his money back i.e. Rs.1500/-. But, the OP told that it was the cost of preparing bridge, medicine and consultation fee and advised him to get his right and left teeth cutting for final impression. It has been denied that after 28.5.2016 the complainant approached to Garg Dental Care and in the said clinic, new cap was wrapper/installed on the upper 1st left tooth of the complainant after due treatment. It is stated that when the tooth of the complainant has already been extracted prior to 28.5.2016, the question of installing cap after 28.5.2016 does not arise at all. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of OPD slip, Ex.C-3 copy of OPD Slip, Ex.C-4 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-5 copy of postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP has produced Ex.OP1 affidavit of OP, Ex.OP2 affidavit of Dr. Ram Kumar, Ex.OP-3 affidavit of Dr. Abhay Bansal, Ex.OP-4 copy of prescription register, Ex.OP-5 copy of letter to the complainant, Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-7 copies of postal receipts and closed evidence.
4. We have very carefully perused the complaint, written reply, as well as evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint deserves dismissal, for these reasons.
5. At the outset, the very beginning of the case of the complainant is that he approached the OP on 6.5.2016 with the problem of tooth ache and the Op after thorough inspection of the teeth of the complainant, the Op suggested that the complainant is required to install a cap on the teeth having pain and as such the OP demanded an amount of Rs.3000/- for the installation of the cap and the OP charged an amount of Rs.1000/- on 6.5.2016, whereas the Op has denied this fact that the complainant never approached the OP on 6.5.2016. Moreover, we may mention that the complainant has not produced any such prescription slip issued by the OP on 6.5.2016 to the complainant showing that he approached the Op for treatment of teeth. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce the same. Further case of the OP is that the complainant approached it only on 28.5.2016 and complained that on the upper left first incisor (tooth) has pain and it was wrapped with crown without RCT and on 26.5.2016 x-ray of the said tooth was done by Garg Dental Clinic Dhuri on the advice of Bansal Dental Clinic. To support this contention, the learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the affidavit of Dr. Daljit Kaur Sidhu Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 is the affidavit of Dr Raj Kumar Garg, wherein it has been clearly mentioned in para number 2 “that on 26.5.2016, Jagdeep Singh complainant came to his clinic with a complaint of pain and swelling in the upper left incisor and for getting the x-ray of his upper left incisor (tooth) bearing crown/cap. The entry regarding the x-ray of Jagdeep Singh was incorporated at Sr. No.1327 in the patient register maintained by the deponent in his hospital. As per the x-ray report dated 26.5.2016, it was case of periapical abscess. There is another affidavit of Dr. Abhay Bansal, Ex.OP-3 on record, wherein it has been stated that on 26.5.2016 the complainant came to him with a complaint of pain and swelling in the upper left incisor bearing crown/cap and the entry regarding treatment taken by Jagdeep Singh was incorporated at Serial No.1525 in the patient register. But, the complainant has not produced even a rejoinder to deny the allegations of the Ops and further to prove that he ever approached the OP on 6.5.2016. As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that he approached the OP on 6.5.2016. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any medical expert evidence to establish that the OP was in any way deficient in treating the complainant, more so when the complainant has even failed to establish that he took treatment from the OP. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish his case of any medical negligence on the part of the OP.
6. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Pronounced.
February 17, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
