Date of Filing:15.01.2009<br /> Date of Order:06.11.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 143 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Ravichandran,<br /> S/o Late C. Narayanaswami,<br /> R/at No.200/3, Lakshmipathi Layout,<br /> Muneshwara Temple Road,<br /> Kariyannapalya,<br /> St. Thomas Town Post,<br /> Lingarajapuram,<br /> Bangalore-560 084. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. The Chairman,<br /> M.R. Ambedkar Dental College & Hospital,<br /> No.1.36, Cline Road,<br /> Cook Town, Bangalore-05.<br /> <br /> 2. Dr. Satish,<br /> M.R. Ambedkar Dental College & Hospital,<br /> No.1.36, Cline Road,<br /> Cook Town, Bangalore-05.<br /> <br /> 3. Dr. Adil,<br /> M.R. Ambedkar Dental College & Hospital,<br /> No.1.36, Cline Road,<br /> Cook Town, Bangalore-05. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts stated by the complainant in his complaint are as under:-<br /> “The complainant submits that, the complainant is running a dry cleaners shop. On 16-08-20006 the complainant had approached the opponent No.2 hospital for missing tooth and wants to replace it. Accordingly, the opponents have referred the matter to doctors who are trainees in their college. The complainant was issued a out patient card with OP no.1060323. Thereafter he was referred to different doctors for examination and he has pay Rs.25/- towards the fees and same was paid with receipt no.72. The complainant was prescribed with same medicines and advised to come back again on 7-12-2000 at 9AM and again he was further asked to pay a sum of Rs.25/- towards the consultancy fees. Again they did some treatment and advised to come on 13-12-2000 at 11AM and they have done some treatment on that day by some of the medical students were trying to experiment in the presence of some of the professors and advised to come on 5-1-2007, the doctors were teaching the other students and experimenting the treatment with the complainant.”<br /> “The complainant submits that, again he was advised to come back on 31-1-2007, the complainant was asked to come again and administered some treatment on the complainant. They removed the few teeth from the complainant s which were healthy and were not having any infection or problems. After having the treatment, the pain and sufferings continued for the complainant. And he could not eat or drink for several days and in a point where he could not even close his mouth. The complainant was called again 5-4-2007 and made to pay a sum of Rs.50/- as a consultancy charges and further treatment was called on 10-4-2001 and subsequently on 11-4-2007 he was again called and asked to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- towards the consultancy fees and they have conducted some surgeries on the complainant jaws for which he could not even close his mouth and the unbearable pain was continued. Subsequently, the complainant realized that he was taken for a ride by the opponent persons and they were making use of complainant to teach their students and the students were doing their experiments and practicals on the complainant. They also conducted some surgeries which was not required at all. Prior to the said incident, the complainant was hale and healthy and he had only one teeth missing. Further treatment he had visited the opponent hospital at the first instance.”<br /> <br /> “On 23-5-2007, the complainant was admitted in St. Philomena Hospital for the further treatment and he was admitted in the hospital for the further treatment and he was admitted in the hospital till as inpatient 28-5-2007 and the said hospital have conducted have surgery and informed the complainant that the treatment which have been given by the opponent were wrong and due to the said treatment the complainant had sustained permanent disability and he was forced to remove some of the tooth and they also have surgery to set right the wrong surgeries conducted by the opponents.”<br /> Hence the complainant prayed that opposite party directed to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for the pain, suffering and mental agony.<br /> 2. The respondents have filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. Surgical procedure was done under the supervision of professor in charge of the unit. After surgical procedure, the complainant was advised to come for further treatment after healing. However, it is ascertained that the complainant fell down during healing period as a result jaw was fractured. Pain or suffering etc., might be due to negligence and recklessness of the complainant. Opposite parties are not aware that the complainant was admitted at St. Philomena’s Hospital for further treatment. Compensation claimed is imaginary. The opposite parties are not responsible for suffering or pain. Therefore, the opposite parties are prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complainant has proved the medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> <br /> 3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. On going through the complaint allegations, the complainant stated in his complaint at para-2 that on 16/06/2006 he approached the opposite party No.2 hospital for replacement of missing tooth and he submitted in the complaint that he was advised to come back again on 07/12/2000 at 9-00 AM and again he was further asked to come on 13/12/2000 at 11-00 AM. By reading para-2 of the complaint the case of the complainant is completely confused and we cannot make out the correct case of the complainant. It is very difficult to believe or accept that, the complainant was advised to come on 07/12/2000 and 13/12/2000 by the doctors, when he had approached the opposite party Hospital on 16/08/2006. This type of pleading will not give any meaning. So under these circumstances, it is very difficult to find out the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant again in para-3 of the complaint stated that he was again called on 05/04/2007 and made to pay a sum Rs.50/- as consultancy charges and further he was called on 10/04/2001. Again this is confusing statement written by him in para-3 of his complaint. The complainant is not definite about his case and the treatment taken by him in the opposite party hospital. The complainant stated that on 23/05/2007 he was admitted to St. Philomena’s Hospital for further treatment and they informed him that treatment which was given by the opposite parties were wrong, but the complainant has not produced any certificate or medical records or case sheet of St. Philomena’s Hospital to show that the doctors of that hospital had informed the complainant that treatment given to him by the opposite parties was wrong. Therefore, without there being any medical certificate or report, how can this Forum come to the conclusion that treatment given by the opposite party hospital was wrong. Secondly the complainant has not produced expert opinion from any hospital or doctor to show or establish that the line up treatment given by the opposite party hospital was wrong not in accordance with the prescribed medical procedure or method. So, in the absence of any medical evidence or expert opinion it is not possible to find out the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital. The complainant again not filed his complaint well within time. He has admitted to hospital on 16/08/2006 and he has filed this complaint on 16/01/2009 after more than two years of his treatment in the opposite party hospital. So, under this ground also complaint is not maintainable. Having any view of the matter, there is absolutely no merit in the complaint. Complainant has failed to prove the medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />