By  Sri.P.K.Sasi, President

          The case of the complainant is that he has approached the opposite party hospital for dental treatment to rectifying the upper teeth gap. After detailed examination by Dr. Jojo A. Jobkutty of the opposite party hospital, suggested a new method of treatment called “clear path orthodontics”. This method is comparatively costlier than other types of treatment. The opposite party assured better result with much painless and comfortable though costlier. By considering the assurances offered by the opposite party the complainant agreed to undergo the new method of treatment called “clear path orthodontics”.  Accordingly on 07/05/16 the complainant paid Rs.1,100/- for scaling and filling charges. He also paid an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-   towards the new method of Orthodontics treatment and the opposite party provided 23 aligner sets (trays) with instruction manual to the complainant and advised him to insert the sets as mentioned in the manual and as directed by the treated Doctor. Accordingly the complainant started inserting the aligners for the recommended time of 14-15 days. The complainant used 16 aligners with comfort whereas from the 17^th set onwards it is found that aligners are getting breaking in its lower portion and also found unfit for his teeth. This was happened within 5 to 6 days after insertion.  All remaining aligners from 17^th set also got broken in its lower portion. The clear path aligners supplied to the complainant by the opposite party was not having any international standard, quality and specifications as assured by the opposite party.

          2) The progress of the treatment and the braking nature of the aligners were informed to the opposite party on several times. The opposite party assured that they will arrange other standard aligners to the complainant but nothing was done by them. At last the complainant issued a lawyer notice on 04/01/18 asking the opposite party to provide stable and standard clear path aligners as assured by them. Whereas, evenafter accepting the notice the opposite party neither sent any reply nor acted as per the notice.

          3) According to the complainant the opposite party provided low quality substandard aligners to the complainant by collecting huge amount. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service as well as utter unfair trade practice towards the complainant. The illegal acts of the opposite party created unnecessary mental agony, monetary loss and heavy hardship to the complainant. Since the aligner used by the complainant was substandard, no result was obtained to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the materials collected from him along with reasonable compensation. Hence this complaint is filed for getting relief.

          4) On receiving complaint notice was properly sent to the opposite party whereas evenafter accepting the notice the opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte and the case was posted for complainant’s evidence.

          5) From the side of complainant he has appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He also produced 7 documents which are marked as Ext. P1 to P7 and also produced the aligners which are marked as MO1 series. Ext. P1 is the advance receipt dtd. 07/05/16; Ext. P2 is the receipt dtd. 07/05/16; Ext. P3 is the Patient’s instruction manual; Ext. P4 is the guarantee certificate; Ext. P5 is the copy of lawyer notice; Ext. P6 is the postal receipt and Ext. P7 is the A/D card. Since there is no contra evidence available before us we are inclined to accept the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. If at all there was any contra evidence for the opposite party they ought to have been appeared before the Forum and submitted their version. We heard the learned counsel for the complainant in detail.

          6) We have gone through the contents of affidavit and perused the documents produced from the side of complainant. Ext. P7 A/D card would go to show that the opposite party has received a lawyer notice on 06/01/18 but they did not respond to that notice. Similarly for the notice issued from the Forum is also the opposite party did not give any importance. The MO1 series aligners are seen broken. Ext. P1 would go to show that the complainant has paid Rs.1,05,000/- as advance for aligners. Considering all these points discussed hereinabove we are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed utter deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant by without providing good quality aligners by collecting huge amount.

          In the result, we allow this complaint and the opposite party is directed to return Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees One lakh five thousand only) along with Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from receiving copy of this order.

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29^th day of June 2018.

             Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

M.P.Chandrakumar                                                     P.K.Sasi,

Member                                                                        President.                     

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 advance receipt dtd. 07/05/16

Ext. P2 receipt dtd. 07/05/16

Ext. P3 Patient’s instruction manual

Ext. P4 guarantee certificate

Ext. P5 copy of lawyer notice

Ext. P6 postal receipt

Ext. P7 A/D card

MO1 series aligners.

                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                         President