Paramjit Singh @ Lovely S/o S. Davinder Singh r/o 216-I, Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana.
….Complainant.
Versus

Dr. Gurinder Kaur Thind, BDS, MDA, Dr. Surinder Singh Memorial Thind Dental Clinic, Clinic-II, near Street No.6, Main Bazar, Janakpuri, Ludhiana.
….Opposite party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present: Sh. H.S. Bhatti Adv. for the complainant.
Sh. V.K. Gupta Adv. for opposite party.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- In this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, wherein complainant has alleged negligence in treating his tooth by opposite party, causing sufferance, pain to him and consequently, sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- for such negligence on her part. Case of the complainant is that he felt toothache and obtained services of opposite party, who promised to cure the same. He was made by opposite party to visit her clinic time and again, in order to cough up money, but despite it, she failed to heel the ailing tooth. On account of gross negligence, carelessness of the opposite party, ailing tooth of the complainant decayed, as simple cement laid by the opposite party also peeled off. The filling of damaged tooth and rooting done, was with intention to squeeze money from the complainant. She even refused to answer queries of the complainant. She was totally negligent in treating him.


2- Opposite party contested the complaint by taking stand of denial of negligent treatment of the complainant. She has averred that best treatment as per standard procedure and standard medicines were given, so there was no question of deficiency in service. She performed her professional duty in treating the complainant accurately and diligently. She is a qualified doctor, having passed B.D.S. and registered doctor, and practicing for more than 10 years. Her clinic is fully equipped with modern machinery and branded medicines. She possesses skill and knowledge to provide root canal treatement. Is also insured with New India Assurance Co. It is denied that she made the complainant to visit her clinic, to cough up money. Also denied that he failed to heel ailing tooth of the complainant or forced him to make rounds to her clinic. Heeling the tooth is a natural procedure which takes own time. Root canal treatment procedure is adopted only on the decayed tooth and not on healthy tooth. It is admitted that filling of the ailing tooth was done and thereafter root canal treatement was started. But she was not negligent at all while treating tooth of the complainant. She and her husband, who is also doctor, have been organizing camps, to serve the society. In one such camp, complainant came with his daughter and wife on 27.10.2006. His daughter was checked and treated. He was satisfied with the treatment given to his daughter and then sought from her own dental treatment. He was examined and temporary filling of the tooth was done and was called next day for check up. Thereafter, was advised to come after three days for permanent filling, but he did not turn up. After many days, complainant came on 6.10.2006, reporting severe pain of the tooth, by telling that he had gone to a friend’s house, who was a unqualified dentist, who gave him some treatment. On examination, it was found that treatement taken by the complainant from his friend, has ended with pulp exposure of the tooth which was causing pain. In order to save the tooth, root canal treatment was given, as it was badly handled by his unqualified dentist friend. But complainant was not regular in his treatment and left it in between. Further alleged that the complainant in league with staff of the opposite party hospital, fabricated his treatement chart, by making entries and then in collusion, obtained photo copies from them. Complainant, as such, claimed not entitled for any compensation or damages.


3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.


4- In the instant case, not in dispute that opposite party is a qualified dentist, having passed B.D.S. and has started her own clinic for more than 10 years. Opposite party claimed in her affidavit that having experience, proper, adequate machinery, standard medicines in her clinic. It is in the backdrop of such aspect, we have to scan whether opposite party was negligent in treating the complainant.


5- Hon’ble Apex Court in case Martin F. D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in 1 (2009) CPJ 32 (SC) has held that medical practitioner won’t be liable for negligence simply because things went wrong from mischance/misadventure through error of judgment. He would only be liable where his conduct fell below that of standards of reasonably competent practitioner in his field. Simply because patient not favorably responded to treatment given by the doctor o surgery failed, doctor can not be held straightway liable for medical negligence.


6- We are aware that medical negligence is required to be proved by cogent, definite and specific evidence such as by examining any expert to show that treatement given by earlier expert, was not as per standards, norms and normal prevalent practice of the treatment. In the instant case, complainant has not examined any expert doctor to prove his allegations of treating him negligently by the opposite party, except swearing his own allegations by way of affidavit Ex.CW1/A. Whereas, opposite party vide affidavit Ex.R1/A on the other hand, has claimed that the best treatment was given as per practice and norms and she was not deficient and negligent in treating the ailing tooth of the complainant, nor tooth of the complainant decayed due to her wrong treatment. She further claimed that Caries is the natural phenomena which occurs in the month, due to presence of bacteria in the human mouth. The Caries causes decaying of the tooth, so root canal treatment procedure as adopted on such decayed tooth. Before resorting to root canal treatment, filling was done and thereafter, root canal treatment was started. After temporary filling, complainant was required to visit the clinic after 3 days for permanent filling, but he failed to turn up after lapse of three days. He came on lapse of good number of days on 6.10.2006, complaining pain in the tooth and asserted that had gone to a friend, who was unqualified dentist and wrong treatement obtained from his friend, has resulted in pulp exposure of the tooth, causing pain. In order to save the tooth, was advised to undergo root canal treatment which treatement, with his consent, was given. Hence, she was not negligent.


7- Ex.C1 is copy of OPD card of the complainant. But the same is not visible. Hence, we sought its original from the opposite. This card shows that complainant attended clinic of opposite party on 27.9.2006, then on 28.9.2006 and thereafter on 6.10.2006. Opposite party claimed that in original of OPD card, complainant in league with employees of the clinic of opposite party, inserted and fabricated entries therein qua wrong treatement given.


8- In the present case, no material is brought on record by the complainant to show that treatement provided to him, was not of standard quality or professional and that opposite party was negligent in treating him. He could have proved this fact, by examining any expert, but he failed to do so.



9- In these circumstances, we have no material on the record that opposite party was negligent in treating the complainant. Hence, for alleged deficiency, won’t be entitled for any compensation from opposite party. Therefore, finding no merits in the complaint, the same stands dismissed.