By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant approached opposite party on 17/10/2022 after taking OP ticket and then the opposite party told to the complainant that they are not providing root canal treatment for the persons who crossed 60 years. Thereafter the complainant approached Malabar dental college at Edappal and he under gone root canal treatment from there spending an amount of Rs. 1,000/-. The complainant alleges the opposite party hospital promoting practice of meeting of the patient at the residence of doctors and they are only entertaining patients who make payments from their residence. The complainant alleges most of the doctors attached to the opposite party hospital are doing private practice at their residence. The opposite parties not providing appointments to the poor patients and providing appointments beyond six months. Hence the allegation of the complainant is that due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party he was compelled to avail treatment from the Malabar hospital and so the opposite party is liable to pay the cost met by the complainant for the treatment and also compensation.
2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
3. The opposite party submitted that he enquired about the allegations and submitted that there is one permanent doctor and one doctor under contract is working there in the dental department of hospital. The doctor who is working under contract is a pediatric dentist. It is further submitted that during the alleged period 2022 October more than 1700 patients were consulted by the doctors and also undertaken five hundred procedures and also 51 root canal treatments. The department is not a RCT specialty but providing possible treatment for the patients by the department.
4. The opposite party submitted that RCT is providing through appointments under preference order as per registration. At the time of request made by the complainant there was booking for the last two years. Moreover, the complainant treatment has to be undertaken endo dontist and there was no service available in the hospital for the said purpose. As per the treatment record of the complainant, he was advised to undergo X-ray and also given registration for the treatment. But there after no further details of the complainant is available before the opposite party. It is further clarified that the opposite party is providing emergent treatment then and there and all other treatments are providing through appointments.
5. The opposite party denied the allegations that the doctors of the opposite party are doing private practice at their residence. The attempt of the complainant is to discredit the doctors of the opposite party. Hence prayed to depose the complaint considering the version.
6. The complainant filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Ext. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is copy of application submitted by the complainant under right to information act dated 24/03/2023. Ext.A2 is copy of reply issued to the right to information application dated 16/05/2023. Ext. A3 is copy of cash bill issued from Malabar Dental college and research center Edappal. Ext. A4 is copy of OP ticket dated 17/10/2022.
The opposite party did not file affidavit
7. Heard complainant, perused affidavit and documents.
8. The case of the complainant is that he approached the opposite party for the root canal treatment after availing outpatient ticket for Rs. 10/-. But the opposite party denied the treatment to the complainant stating that they cannot provide treatment to the patients who crossed 60 years. On the other hand, the opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. It is submitted that he was consulted from the opposite party hospital and was advised X-ray and registration was given for fixing the lost teeth. It is further submitted that there is no specialist available in the hospital to provide apt treatment to the complainant which is revealed as per Ext. A2 also. Though the opposite party has not filed affidavit in lieu of evidence we have gone through affidavit and documents of the complaint. It appears the allegation of the complainant cannot be treated as deficiency of service as defined in the consumer protection act and the complainant has not availed treatment of the opposite party for the consideration. The allegation of the complainant is that due to the attitude of the opposite party the eligible treatment to the complainant was denied by the opposite party. But as per documents the allegation of the complainant is not established. The complainant was examined from the opposite party hospital and due prescription was also provided. So, we do not find that the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. There is no merit in the complaint to allow the prayer of the complainant.
9. Hence the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2024.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1: Copy of application submitted by the complainant under right to information act
dated 24/03/2023.
Ext.A2: Copy of reply issued to the right to information application dated 16/05/2023.
Ext A3: Copy of cash bill issued from Malabar Dental college and research centre
Edappal.
Ext A4: Copy of OP ticket dated 17/10/2022.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
