BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI

                                  Consumer Complaint No.625 of 2013

                                 Date of institution:          10.12.2013

                                                 Date of Decision:            11.06.2015

Mrs. Kasturan Kapoor wife of Ved Parkash Kapoor resident of House No.53, Adarsh Enclave, Zirakpur, District Mohali.

    ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Dr. Gupta Multi Speciliaty Dental Clinic, SCF 41, F.F. Adjacent Back gate of Dee Ess Estate, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, Ajitgarh through its Incharge/Prop. Dr. Pratibha Gupta.

………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                OP Dr. Pratibha Gupta, in person.

(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)

ORDER

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’):

(a)    to refund Rs.47,600/- received by it for treatment.

(b)    to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for pain and mental harassment.

(c)    to pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

                The complainant’s case is that she approached the OP on 17.08.2013 for treatment of teeth problem. After checking the OP advised the complainant to get some teeth extracted and put Crown and Bridge capping etc. in the teeth which were in good position. For this the OP demanded Rs.32,600/- from the complainant in advance.  However, the complainant paid this amount in parts by 23.08.2013. The OP fixed teeth in the mouth of the complainant but the teeth fixed by the OP were uneven and had small spaces in between them due to which the complainant is unable to bite the food property as the food got stuck in the spaces which start giving foul smell after some time.  The complainant was also having constant pain in the teeth fixed by the OP.  The complainant informed the OP on 17.09.2013 about the pain suffered by her and the OP informed that the pain will subside within some days and asked the complainant to revisit after one month.  However, due to persistent pain the complainant contacted the OP again on 18.09.2013 but on this date of visit, the OP did not make any corrections in the denture nor provided any medicines for stopping the foul smelling emitting from the mouth.  Rather the OP forced the complainant to accept the pain and denture as it is, as the same will settle in the due course of time.  Upon this the complainant approached another clinic on 18.09.2013 and the doctor advised her to undergo the procedure of porcelain again to get rid of the pain.  Due to deficient and negligent treatment conducted by the OP, the complainant is now taking liquid diet for her survival  and she has to spent another Rs.15,000/- on her treatment from other clinic.  Thus, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2.             The OP in the written statement has pleaded that the complainant has left the treatment in between voluntarily and has consulted some other dentist; as such she is not entitled for any refund from the OP. On merits, it is averred that the complainant was told that teeth replacement dental treatment require multiple sittings. The OP is practicing this profession for the last 11 years and is also registered with State Dental Council. The complainant visited the OP for her problem of teeth on 17.08.2013. After thorough check up the complainant was advised for Crown and Bridge fixed replacement treatment which included extraction of 7 teeth, filling of 8 teeth, replacement of 10 missing teeth with the help of multiple unit bridge and cleaning of teeth and cost of complete treatment was Rs.32,600/-. The treatment was started on 19.08.2013 when 4 extractions along with 3 fillings were done and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,000/-. Then the bridge was approved by the complainant and upper/lower porcelain trial was done on 10.09.2013 which was duly approved by the complainant. Due to poor unhygienic upkeep of the oral cavity by the complainant, as complainant being old person of 72 years could not brush her teeth properly, the foul smell emitting from the mouth is a natural phenomenon as the food gets stuck in the inter spaces of two teeth which needs proper brushing. The material used by them i.e. porcelain prosthesis does not give any foul smell.  Similarly due to micro spaces in the natural denture occur naturally in all humans and is not specific to the complainant only.  On the demand of the complainant, bridge was fixed with temporary cementing material on 14.09.2013. It was also told to the complainant that if any discomfort is felt the bridge can be removed easily and adjustment of the bridge can be done accordingly.  Thereafter, the complainant never visited the OP. Rather the OP out of professional duty sent several reminders via SMS on 27.09.2013, 28.09.2013 and registered post card on 30.09.2013. Rs.10,000/- is still due from the complainant towards the treatment. The appointment schedule and timings was as per the convenience of the complainant.  On 24.08.2013, 26.08.2013 and 28.08.2013 the complainant took prior appointment and requested the time slot of around 4.00 PM. Out of six appointments at 4 PM four were Saturdays which according to the complainant was suitable to her as her daughter’s office was off on Saturdays.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-3.

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Dr. Pratibha Gupta, Ex.OP-1/1 and copies of document Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the OP in person and gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant.

6.             It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant availed the services of the OP from 17.09.2013 for having dental treatment as per agreed consideration i.e. Rs.32,600/-. Since dental treatment is a multi sittings procedure, therefore, the whole treatment as per the OP lasted for couple of days till 18.09.2013 as per appointment registered, maintained by the OP in due course of business practice Ex.OP-1 to OP-3/G.  The complainant has paid all the agreed amount minus Rs.10,000/- balance.  As per the doctor’s clinical notes Ex.C-1 the complainant has last visited the OP on 14.09.2013 where the OP has given the following treatment:

                “PFM bridges cemented with ZOE from 13 → 23

                                                                           24 → 27

                                                           43 → 33

                                                           34 → 36”

                With the advice to review after one month, if needed, take prior appointment by phone. As per complainant, after getting the structure temporary fixed on 14.09.2013 the complainant was feeling uncomfortable and pain in the denture. Therefore, she approached the OP on 18.09.2013 with the problem of pain and foul smell coming from uneven teeth fixed by the OP.  Rather than treating the complainant clinically the Ops refused to give any advice or treatment and just counseled that the problem will be set right of its own with the passage of time. Since the complainant was having persistent pain, she approached another doctor on the same i.e. on 18.09.2013 and the other doctor advised her to undergo the procedure again after removing the already fixed denture. Therefore, the complainant had to shell out another sum of Rs.15,000/- to get the new  denture from another doctor and in the process have also to face physical and mental agony. Thus on these grounds i.e. for giving faulty and defective dental treatment of temporary denture to the complainant by the OP, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.             In order to understand the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, we have gone through the contents of Ex.C-2 i.e. the treatment record of another doctor from 18.09.2013 to 19.11.2013. The perusal of the record Ex.C-2 does not show the case history  of the treatment given by the OP.  Without the case history and the treatment earlier taken by the complainant and particularly when the complainant was suffering from persistent pain, another doctor’s record Ex.C-2 does not show any treatment given by the other doctor for subsiding the pain which the complainant was suffering at that point of time. Therefore, the allegation that the complainant was not given any treatment of pain on 18.09.2013 by the OP is only a bald assertion as no treatment of pain has also been given by the another treating doctor vide Ex.C-2 on the said date i.e. on 18.09.2013.

8.             As per the OP though the complainant visited it on 18.09.2013 with the problem of persistent pain and foul smell,  as no treatment was required, as per the wisdom and skill of the OP, therefore, after clinically examining the complainant she was counseled about the issue and asked to make balance payment of Rs.10,000/-. In fact the demand of Rs.10000/- is the agitating point which the complainant does not want to pay. Thereafter the complainant never visited the OP. Since the denture was fixed temporarily, for permanent fixation of upper and lower bridges, the complainant was reminded of the same by the OP vide post dated 30.09.2013. The complainant has received such intimation from the OP as is evident from Ex.C-3 and still the complainant never visited it after 18.09.2013. In order to resolve the controversy whether the complainant has got another fresh denture from another hospital and the denture manufactured by the OP has become redundant, the complainant has produced a one set of denture in the Forum for having expert opinion from the PGI.  The veracity of the denture so produced by the complainant was disputed by the OP and, therefore, the same was not sent for expert opinion. Against the order of this Forum, the complainant has approached Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission has upheld the orders of this Forum for not sending the denture for expert opinion to PGI. Thus, when the veracity of the case property i.e. disputed denture allegedly manufactured by the OP, is not proved by the complainant. So much so the complainant has not even produced the evidence of allegedly second treating doctor i.e. treatment record Ex.C-2. Thus, in the absence of any cogent evidence to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has not been able to prove her case. 

9.             Thus, the complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

June 11, 2015.    

                                                                     (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)

                                                                        President

(Amrinder Singh)

Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member