STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 22 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 07.02.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 24.04.2017 |
Tanvir Malik S/o Late Lt. Col. Dalbir Singh, R/o H.No. 6319/A, Rajeev Vihar, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Manjra, Chandigarh.
……Appellant
V e r s u s
Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Principal
... Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against order dated 15.12.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.752/2015..
Argued by: Mr. Tanvir Malik, appellant in person.
Dr.Devinder Singh, Professor in the Department of Laws &
authorized representative of the respondent.
Appeal No. | : | 102 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 20.04.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 24.04.2017 |
Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Principal-cum-Professor.
-Appellant
Versus
Tanvir Malik S/o Late Lt. Col. Dalbir Singh, R/o H.No. 6319/A, Rajeev Vihar, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Manjra, Chandigarh.
..Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against order dated 15.12.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.752/2015..
Argued by: Dr.Devinder Singh, Professor in the Department of Laws &
Authorized representative of the appellant.
Mr. Tanvir Malik, respondent in person.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing Nos.22 of 2017 filed by the complainant and 102 of 2017 filed by Opposite Party No.1, both against order dated 15.12.2016, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh (for short ‘the Forum’ only) allowing consumer complaint bearing No.752 of 2015 filed by the appellant in appeal No.22 of 2017, granting him the following relief ;
[a] To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant;
[b] To pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation;
The awarded amount was ordered to be paid within the stipulated period, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.
Opposite Party No.1 has filed the above appeal to lay challenge to the order passed by the Forum.
2. As per facts on record, the complainant Tanvir Malik on 6.9.2015 went to OP institute for treatment of his braces. He was advised to get his wisdom tooth extracted. On 10.9.2015, tooth extraction surgery to extract tooth Nos.28 and 38 was done by OP No.2 (at present OP No.2 is dead). It was his case that tooth No.38 was correctly extracted, but instead of tooth No.28, OP No.2 extracted tooth No.27. The said act was done by not using proper care and caution at the time when surgery was conducted. The said fact was got confirmed by the complainant from another dental health care Centre. Thereafter, a notice was given to OP NO.1 claiming compensation for wrongful extraction of healthy tooth. When nothing was done, a consumer complaint was filed in the Forum.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed by OP No.1. OP No.2 had died by that time. At that time, it was said by counsel for the complainant that the relief has been sought only qua OP No.1 and further he has got no objection, if on account of death, name of OP No.2 be deleted from the array of OPs. Accordingly the name of OP No.2 was deleted from the memo of parties. The complaint was contested by OP No.1 pleading that the patient/complainant was properly treated by the deceased doctor- OP No.2. All care and caution was used when extracting his tooth. The said doctor is no more alive. Only he could have explained the reasons and circumstances under which tooth No.27 was extracted instead of tooth No.28.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting the relief, as stated in the earlier part of this order.
5. It was found by the Forum, as a matter of fact, that Dr.Rahul Sharma-OP No.2 had performed tooth extraction surgery upon the complainant. The said doctor was employed with OP No.1 (the institute). During pendency of the proceedings, the matter was sent for expert opinion to a board of doctors of Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. Extraction of tooth No.27 was confirmed.
6. The Forum, when granting relief to the complainant, observed as under ;
“ The first question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Complainant is a consumer qua Opposite Party No.1 or not, as it has been contended by Opposite Party No.1 that it is a non-profit institution and functioning like a Govt. Institution on the principle and basis of not earning any profit from its patients? In our opinion, the Complainant falls very much in the category of a ‘Consumer’, because as per Annexure C-1 at Pg. No.7 of the paper book, the Complainant paid Rs.200/- each for the aforesaid extractions. Moreover, the Govt. Hospitals/ Institutions may not be commercial in any sense, but on the overall consideration of the objectives and the scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it would not be possible to treat Opposite Party No.1 differently, particularly, when the Complainant paid for his required treatment.
It is evident from Annexure C-1 the Out Patient Record Slip that the Complainant was advised the extraction of Tooth No.28 and 38 and also Complainant paid the required fee for the same. Annexure C-2 is the opinion report of one another doctor confirming the presence of 28th tooth and absence of 27th one. Annexure C-3 is a notice sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 for the redressal of his grievance, which was not replied by it. It is noteworthy that an inquiry into this unfortunate incident was conducted which confirms that Tooth No.27 is missing and Tooth No.28 is unerupted. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is sheer negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1 for getting the Complainant treated wrongly. On account of negligence on the part of Opposite Party, the Complainant lost one of his permanent valuable tooth at such a young age. Article 47 of the Constitution of India recognizes the improvement of Public Health as one of the primary duties of the State. Public Health can be improved by having best of Doctors, Specialists and Super Specialists. But in the present case, due to improper monitoring of the patient/ Complainant, he suffered loss of one Tooth which is permanent and irreparable loss. The Complainant must have visited Opposite Party No.1 Institute with some trust being a prestigious Institute of the City, but resultantly the act of Opposite Party No.1 for giving a permanent tooth loss to the Complainant and thereafter non-replying to his notice for redressal of his grievance rather forcing him to knock the doors of this Forum to get justice, certainly caused immense mental and physical harassment to the Complainant. It was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 Institute to take proper care of the Complainant during his treatment at its Hospital. The Complainant suffered dual loss one of his permanent Tooth and later his precious time which he had to devote to rush for the present litigation. Hence, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 is writ large.”
7. It was found as a matter of fact that instead of extraction of tooth No.28, OP No.2 wrongly extracted tooth No.27. A firm finding was given that OP No.2 was negligent in extracting tooth No.27. It was further said that public health can be improved by having best of the doctors. It appears that such finding was given by not making any reference to the record available. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased doctor was not competent/qualified to perform tooth extraction surgery. The observation made by the Forum may not be read being referred to the deceased doctor.
8. The contention of appellant/complainant Tarvir Malik that compensation granted is on the lower side, is not acceptable. We feel that the amount of Rs.25,000/- granted by the Forum on account of compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs is quite adequate.
9. The contention of Counsel for the appellant in appeal No.102 of 2017 that may be due to some emergency, tooth No.27 was extracted by OP NO.2, is liable to be rejected. No such note prepared by OP No.2, before and after surgery, has been placed on record. It is only orally said that such like extraction may have occurred, if there is an emergency. However, nothing was brought on record to support the above contention.
10. In view of the above, no case is made out to make any interference in the order, under challenge. Accordingly both the appeals are dismissed.
11. Certified copies of this order, be placed on the file of Appeal bearing No.102 of 2017
12. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
13. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
24.04.2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 102 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 20.04.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 24.04.2017 |
Dr. Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Punjab University, Sector 25, Chandigarh, through its Principal-cum-Professor.
-Appellant
Versus
Tanvir Malik S/o Late Lt. Col. Dalbir Singh, R/o H.No. 6319/A, Rajeev Vihar, Modern Housing Complex, Mani Manjra, Chandigarh.
..Respondent
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 against order dated 15.12.2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.752/2015..
Argued by: Dr.Devinder Singh, Professor in the Department of Laws &
Authorized representative of the appellant.
Mr. Tanvir Malik, respondent in person.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 92 days, as per office 58 days, in filing the same. In view of the reasons given in the application, and taking note of the fact that an appeal filed by the complainant bearing No.22/2017 is pending consideration and fixed for today, we condone the delay.
2. Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in Appeal bearing No.22 of 2017 titled as Tanvir Malik Vs Dr.Harvansh Singh Judge Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, this appeal has been dismissed.
3. Certified copy of the order passed in Appeal bearing No. 22 of 2017, shall also be placed on this file.
4. Certified copies of this order, alongwith the main order passed in Appeal bearing No. 22 of 2017, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
5. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
