Learned counsels for petitioner and respondent were heard on admission. Since petitioner – Doctor had suffered a modest compensation awarded by State Commission payable to respondent, in all fairness, I asked counsel for petitioner to get the matter settled, using his good office but that was not acceptable to him. Factual matrix are that since respondent – Vinod Kumar Agrawal suffered problem in teeth, he got all his teeth extracted at Chhattisgarh Dental College Research Institute, Sundra, Rajnandgaon. Since there was wound at place of both the wisdom tooth and lower jaw, he approached petitioner – Doctor to cure the ailment and also for preparation of an artificial denture. Payment of fee of Rs. 35,000/- by respondent to petitioner was not in dispute as that was acknowledged by the Doctor. Allegedly, though respondent had been visiting the petitioner quite on a number of times, denture was not delivered to him, which forced him to visit another Doctor, who on receipt of less professional fee than that was charged by petitioner, did complete the denture. As he was no longer in need of denture prepared by petitioner, he did not turn up for its delivery. Alleging deficiency on part of petitioner – Doctor for delay in preparation of denture and its delivery to respondent, a consumer complaint was filed with District Forum. Resistance to complaint having been made by Doctor, District Forum, finding no merit, dismissed complaint. Respondent approached State Commission in appeal which bored desired result, the finding having been reversed with award of modest compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in view of delay occasioned in making delivery of denture to respondent. Record bears out the fact that respondent had approached petitioner, a Dental surgeon on 18.06.2006, the medical prescription issued by petitioner bears endorsement about receipt of fee of Rs. 35,000/-. After petitioner was approached, he put an implant on left side of lower jaw on 01.09.2006 and was called for a review. Two implants were put on right side of jaw on 11.09.2006 and respondent was called for review. After one or two more visits, on 29.09.2006, the jaws were found fit, hence primary impression was taken and respondent was advised to come on 02.10.2006 for taking final impression of jaw which followed final impression of upper jaw on 05.10.2006. It was on 10.10.2006 that Jaw Relation was recorded and yet respondent was advised on 13.10.2006 for trial of denture. After confirmation, subsequent to trial, denture was sent to Lab on 14.10.2006 for final preparation. These sequences of events would show long duration of treatment of respondent right from 18.07.2006. Resisting contentions raised on behalf of respondent, petitioner had a different story to tell, as notwithstanding there being any evidence about respondent having committed to pay Rs. 15,000/- for preparation of denture, petitioner would hammer that residual sum of Rs. 15,000/- had not been paid by respondent, delivery of denture was not made to him. Though respondent also had a grouse that higher professional fee was charged in comparison to other Dental Surgeons who was paid by him, rightly this issue was not given much consideration by State Commission. Since a handsome amount of Rs. 35,000/- had already been paid by respondent to petitioner, it looks unlikely that for no reason, he would approach another Dental Surgeon, paying professional fee twice, for which he had already paid the petitioner. Finding so recorded by State Commission was passed on meticulous appreciation of issues and award too, being modest, did not require interference in revision. There being no substance, revision petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost.