IN TH

  E

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting a relief from the opposite party.

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-  The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for the treatment related to the protruded teeth of the complainant on 18/03/2014.  On 20/03/2014 the 1^st opposite party had removed four teeth of the complainant and he paid an amount of Rs. 800+450 including the cleaning charge of the teeth. It is contended that the 1^st opposite party assured him to complete all necessary treatment of protrusion of teeth with in 1_1/2 year and also estimated Rs.13,000/- for the said treatment.  According to the complainant he paid an advance of Rs. 3,000/- for the said treatment and  on 14/04/2014 an another doctor who started the treatment on the upper jaw of the complainant. Even though he paid an amount of Rs. 12,550/- within 23 months for the said treatment the protrusion problem of his teeth were still remained.  It is contended that he complaint this fact to 1^st opposite party on 30/04/2016, she again advised him to pay an another Rs.15,000/-, for the redressal of his problem.  He demanded the amount paid to 1^st opposite party for further treatment but she was reluctant to accept his demand.  It is contended that being a driver he is not able to spend further money for the said treatment and also contended that for the treatment he is spend his time and energy that also has to be compensated by 1^st opposite party.  Hence, the complaint for realising the loss sustained to the complainant, compensation, cost etc. etc.

3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  The 1^st opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed their version. On that time the complainant filed a petition to impleaded one Dr. Reji Abraham as the additional 2^nd opposite party in this case.  As per the order in I.A.96/2016 dated:25/08/2016 the said Dr. Reji Abraham was impleaded as the additional 2^nd opposite party in this case.  The additional 2^nd opposite party (herein after call 2^nd opposite party) also appeared before this Forum and filed a separate version.  The version of 1^st opposite party is as follows.  According to 1^st opposite party the compliant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that on 12/04/2014 the complainant approached 1^st opposite party with a complaint of protrusion of upper front teeth.   On examination it was found that his upper front teeth had spacing with protruded jaw thereby the complainant advised him to consult with the visiting Orthodentist the 2^nd opposite party for the treatment.  It is contended that 2^nd opposite party is an academician and at present he is the head of the department at Sri Hasanamba Dental college and Hospital, Hassan, Karnataka.  The 2^nd opposite party diagnosed the complainant’s case as bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion with classic features such as proclined upper and lower anteriors (front teeth), class I molar and canine relation of sides, anterior traumatic bite, deep bite and increased over jet with mid LINE diastema.  He had a tongue thrusting habit and is the cause for the malocclusion.  The treatment expenditure is decided as Rs. 13,000/- and out of which the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs. 3,000/- as pleaded by the complainant.  The treatment protocol for cases with - Bimaxillary Protrusion with traumatic bite of upper and lower anterior and reduce the nasolabial angle and convexity of the face - the 1^st step is the extraction of all first premolars.  The brackets were bonded on the upper arch and separate were placed to create space for placing bands on the molars. The extractions were done not by 1^st opposite party and the extractions were done after his 1^st sitting with 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party elaborately narrated 2^nd to 23^rd appointments in his version as follows:

2^nd appointment (31/05/2014) banding was done leveling aligning 0.014 arch wire was placed.

3^rd appointment (30/06/14) the arch wire was retied to have precise leveling and alignment.

Patient missed the 4^th appointment.

5^th appointment (26/08/2014) – Patient had broken and dislodged the brackets and arch wire was distorted.  Patient was warned of the problems associated with breakages and the need for his co-operation for the successful completion of the treatment.  The debonded brackets were replaced and new arch wire was placed.  This caused a delay and for now the treatment was as good as in the second appointment.  In effect he lost 3 months of his treatment.

6^th appointment (29/09/2014) – the aligning arch wire retied (same stage as 3th appointment)

7^th appointment (21/10/2014) – 0.016 x 0.022 NiTi (aligning arch wire) placed in upper arch.

8^th appointment (25/11/2014) – patient dislodged 25 bracket and aligning of the same teeth was lost.  Hence had to step down to 0.014 NiTi (same as what was done on the 2^nd appointment)

9^th appointment (27/12/2014) – 0.016 x 0.022 NiTi (aligning arch wire) placed in upper arch.

10^th appointment (11/02/2015) – Patient dislodged 12 bracket.  Rebonding of the same done and separator placed in the lower molar region (case is now like at the time of starting)

11^th appointment – (02/04/2015) – Patient not reported for treatment.

12^th appointment – (30/04/2015) – Lower bonding done, 0.014 NiTi placed in lower arch.  Niti retied in max arch.

13^th appointment – (29/05/2015) – 0.016x 0.022 stainless steel arch wire placed in maxillary arch. NiTi retired in lower arch.

14^th appointment – (29/06/2015) – active tie in maxillary arch (2^nd stage). NiTi retied in lower arch.

15^th appointment – (27/07/2015) – Patient not reported for treatment.

16^th appointment – (11/09/2015) – active tie in max arch and 0.06x0.22 stainless steel in maxillary arch. 

17^th appointment (28/09/2015) – active tie in upper and lower arches. 

18^th appointment (21/10/2015) – active tie in upper, lower arches.

19^th appointment – (28/11/2015) – Patient distorted the lower arch wire replaced.

20^th appointment – (29/11/2015) – active tie in upper lower arches.

21^th appointment – (21/01/2016) – Patient broke 13, 11 and 45 brackets.  Rebonding done.  Step down to 0.014 NiTi in upper and lower arches (now the condition is same as the second appointment)

22^nd appointment – (31/03/2016) – Patient broke molar tube on 46, 45 bracket displaced.  Patient removed lower arch wire which was distorted.  Rebonding done.  Fixed maxillary anterior bite plane placed to avoid breakage of the appliance in the lower arch even if the patient bites hard.

23^rd appointment – (29/04/2016) – Patient not reported for treatment. 

                    4.  It is contended that the complainant threatened 1^st opposite party with dare consequence thereby she filed a petition before the DSP Pathanamthitta.  This opposite party stated that the demand of Rs. 15,000/- for the further treatment was a false story cooked-up by the complainant.  According to this opposite party she and 2^nd opposite party had treated the complaint with utmost care and skill.  The allegation of the complainant for awarding compensation against the opposite parties are baseless and also pleaded that 1^st opposite party or 2^nd opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  This 1^st opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 

                   5. The 2^nd opposite party’s version is as follows: According to him the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that he is a specialist in the field of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics carrying an MDS degree in the subject.  He is an academician and at present head of Sri Hasanamba Dental College and Hospital, Hassan, a member of post graduate examination panel and also a speaker at several continuing education programme of Indian Dental Association.  According to him he followed necessary protocol for the treatment like extractions fillings, prophylaxis or minor surgical procedures which were necessary for orthodontic treatment.  It is stated that a minimum time of one and half year is required for the completion of the treatment and it may extend depending on the complexity of the treatment, regularity of the patient condition of the bracket etc.   It is further submitted that the 1^st stage of this kind of treatment is leveling and the second stage consist of space closure. The last stage consists of finishing and route movement.  It is further contended that if any breakage happened in the appliance the treatment has to be stepped-down and may have to go back to leveling and aligning stage.   As an accepted treatment protocol of bimaxillary protrusion to enable retraction of upper and lower anteriors and reduce the nasolabial angle and convexity it was decided to being for extraction of all first premolars.  The 2^nd opposite party also mentioned the details of treatment carried out from second appointment dated: 31/05/2014 to 23^rd appointment dated: 29/04/2016, as carried out earlier there is no need of repeating it again.  According to this opposite party this complainant was highly irresponsible and careless since the repeated breakage of his appliance was happened.  According to this opposite party the complainant never complaint against him with regard to the treatment but the complainant made trouble to 1^st opposite party alone.  It is further contended that there was substantial improvement in his appearance and his malocclusion after the treatment and if he had not broken the appliance repeatedly, his treatment would have been surely completed within time.  This opposite party submitted that he and 1^st opposite party have treated the complaint with utmost care and with all medical professional skill and committed any professional misconduct or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore the 2^nd opposite party prayed to dismiss the case with cost. 

                   6. On the basis of the complaint version and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit and examined him as PW1.  Though PW1 marked Ext A1 to A3 series in his favour. Ext. A1 is the appointment card dated: 16/04/2014.  Ext. A2 series are the copy of petitions.  Ext. A3 series are the statement of account dated:nil.  The PW2 is a Doctor who conducted further treatment of the complainant and he is examined as PW2.  On the other side the 2^nd opposite party he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as DW1.  Through DW1 Ext. B1 to B4 were also marked. Ext. B1 is the certificate of BDS which is issued to 2^nd opposite party.  Ext. B2 is the certificate of MDS orthodontics which is issued to 2^nd opposite party.   Ext. B3 is the clinics license of Dr. Deepthi (OP1).  Ext. B4 is the treatment records.  At the time of cross examination through DW1 Ext.A4 and Ext.A5 are also marked.  Ext. A4 is an agreement between Dr. Deepthi.P and Dr. Reji Abraham (OP1 and OP2).  Ext. A5 series shows that the 1^st opposite party filed a petition before DSP of Police Pathanamthitta against the complainant. Apart from DW1’s evidence the opposite parties examined DW2 on their side.  After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant and opposite parties.  The opposite parties learned counsel also filed an argument note in their favour.

8. Point No1:- According to 1^st and 2^nd opposite party this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is also contended that this case is utterly false, misleading and fraudulent as far as the opposite parties are concerned.  When we evaluate the evidence in this case though the opposite parties raised the above contentions they failed to adduce any substantiable evidence to support their contention at the time of the trial of this case. We can easily inferred that the complainant PW1 approached the 1^st opposite party for orthodontics treatment for avoiding the protrusion of his teeth and also proved that the complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 13,000/- for the treatment to 1^st opposite party.  In the light of this evidence we can find that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party and they are the service providers of the complainant.  Therefore Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

9. Point No.2 & 3:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  When we go through the evidence adduced by the complainant PW1 we can see that the complainant alleged deficiency in service against 1^st and 2^nd opposite party for the treatment of his teeth.  In order to establish the case of the complainant, complainant exhibited a treatment card as Ext. A1 showing a payment of cash from 16/04/2014 to 31/03/2016.  As per Ext. A1 up to 31/03/2014 on different dates (19 times) he paid an amount of  Rs. 11,300/- to the 1^st opposite party for the treatment.  It is also evident to see that only on 29/07/2014, 02/04/2015 & 27/07/2015 the PW1 had not seen the opposite parties for his treatment or consultation.  It is also to be noted that this Ext. A1 is in custody of PW1 and also inferred that the complaint is carrying this Ext.A1 appointment card for all his visit in the hospital.  Ext. A2 series is a complaint filed by 1^st opposite party against the complainant PW1 before the Superintendent of Police, Pathanamthitta alleging the threatening call from the side of the complaint against 1^st opposite party.  In the light of this complaint (Ext. A2) Pathanamthitta Police registered a complaint against PW1 and the same was forwarded to the police for a disposal.  In page 2 and 3 of Ext. A2 series we can see that both the parties signed in the register of the police and agreed to redress the grievances through a court of law.  Ext. A2 series reveals that there was a dispute which was existed between the parties and the complainant agitated this matter with 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A3 proves that the PW1 approached another doctor named Anitha Aan Markose for the further treatment on 26/04/2016 for the correction of his teeth.  If we go through Ext. A3 series we can see that from 26/04/2016 to 10/11/2016 PW1 attended for the treatment in Kulathoor Dental Clinic, Pathanamthitta and paid an amount of Rs.6,000/-to the doctor concerned for the treatment.  This amount can be traced from the payment column of Ext. A3 series.  Ext. A4 is an evidence to show that 2^nd opposite party doctor Reji Abhram, MDS Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics Specialist and 1^st opposite party Dr. Deepthi Panikar are entered in an agreement for the treatment related to Orthodontics in 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  On the basis of this Ext. A4 we can attribute the responsibility of 2^nd opposite party for conducting dental treatment in 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  Ext. A5 series shows that 1^st opposite party filed a petition before the DSP of police Pathanamthitta with regard to an alleged threatening call from the complainants.  We can see that the copy of the complainant in Ext. A5 and Ext.A2 series are one and same.  Apart from the evidence adduced by PW1 in this case the complainant examined PW2 the doctor who is in charge of Kulathoor Dental Hospital.  According to PW2 she is an associated doctor of Kulathoor Dental Hospital and also admitted that she treated PW2 for teeth protrusion.  As discussed earlier this PW2 issued Ext. A3 certificate to PW1.              In chief examination she stated that as per Ext. A3 Rs. 9,500/- is required for the subsequent treatment.  When we refer Ext. A3 certificate we can see that the PW1 paid an amount of Rs. 6,000/- up to 10/11/2016 and a balance amount of Rs.3,000/- is also noted in Ext. A3.  When the concerned doctor of Kulathoor Dental Clinic is examined as PW2 she stated that Rs. 9,500/- is required for the further treatment of the complainant and Ext. A3 shows that she received payments from the complainant. 

10. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite party examined DW1 and DW2 to substantiate their case. The DW1 is the 2^nd opposite party he who conducted the orthodontic treatment for the complainant.  It is deposed that on 16/04/2014 the complainant’s teeth problems was diagnosed as Bimaxillary Protrusion with traumatic bite and also deposed that PW1 agreed the treatment for Rs. 13,000/-.  It is further deposed that for a successful treatment for Bimaxillary Protrusion brackets were bonded and separators were placed for creating spaces placing bands on the molar.  According to DW1 he treated PW1 up to 31/03/2016.  It is further deposed that DW1 treated PW1 with utmost care and with all medical professional skill.  The delay if any, happened that was due to the repeated breaking of the appliances and irresponsible approach of PW1.  In order to prove the professional qualification of DW1 he produced and marked Ext. B1 and Ext. B2 related to his BDS and MDS Orthodontist University certificates issued from Banglore University and Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Science - Karnadaka respectively.   Ext. B2 is a license issued in favour of 1^st opposite party by Pathanamthitta municipality for conducting a multispecialty Dental Clinic which was issued on 07/05/2016.  Ext. B4 is an out patient records issued by 1^st opposite party which explains the treatment done by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party related to PW1’s dental problem.  It reveals that on 12/04/2014 the complainant approached 1^st opposite party and on 16/04/2014 2^nd opposite party DW1 diagnosed the problem of the complainant as Bimaxillary Protrusion and removed two teeth to start treatment.  This exhibit also shows that up to 31/03/2016 the patient co-operated with 1^st and 2^nd opposite party for his treatment.  When we peruse Ext. A1 appointment card and Ext. B4 outpatient records we can see that as per Ext. A1 on 29/07/2014, 02/04/15 & 27/07/2015 it is recorded ‘patient note reported’ or ‘patient not come’.  In Ext. B4 on these days it is mentioned as ‘not come’.  In Ext. A1 there is no mention with regard to the treatment carried out on 21/04/2014 & 07/05/2014 as shown in Ext. B4.  When we appreciate the evidence of Ext. A1 and Ext. B4 we can find material contradiction to it.  When the complainant is examined as PW1 he deposed that Ext. B4 document was prepared by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to safeguard their interest.  When PW1 is cross-examined by opposite party’s learned counsel he admitted that he spend a duration of 23 months for the treatment in 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  It is the case of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party that the treatment of Bimaxillary Protrusion would take one and half year to two and half year.   The question to be considered is whether 1^st and 2^nd opposite party treated the patient complaint with utmost care and reasonable skill and also the opposite parties followed the relevant protocol for the treatment.  When the opposite party’s learned counsel asked a question to PW1 he answered “എൻറെ പല്ലിൻറെ അച്ച് എടുത്തിരുന്നു. The counsel shown a photo (x ray) and a cast to the complainant. ഇത് നിങ്ങളുടെ പല്ലിൻറെ അല്ലെ (A) എൻറെ പല്ലിൻറെ അച്ച് എടുത്തിരുന്നു. അത് ഇതാണോ എന്നെനിക്കറിയില്ല”.  The learned counsel of 1^st opposite party argued that due to the repeated breakings of the appliance and willful absence from appointment day which caused delay in this treatment.  In order to substantiate his contention he pointed out the dates mentioned in Ext. B4 out patient records.  The learned counsel of the complainant argued that the clear protocol of these kinds of treatments would start in the lower jaw and not from upper jaw.  In this case PW1 admitted that he is suffering Bimaxillary Protrusion with traumatic bite if so, for this kind of treatment the removal of the teeth from upper jaw or lower jaw which has to be started first.  In order to get an answer we would like to examine the evidence adduced by PW2 and DW2 in this case.  PW2 deposed in chief “താഴ്വരിയിലെ പല്ലുകൾ tighten ചെയ്യാതെ മേൽവരി പല്ലുകൾ tighten ചെയ്യാൻ space ഉണ്ട് എങ്കിൽ മേൽവരിയിലെ പല്ലുകൾ അകന്നുപോകും ഈ ഹർജിക്കാരൻറെ   താഴ്വരിയിലെ പല്ലുകളും മുന്നോട്ട് ഉന്തിയിരുന്നതാണ്. ഇങ്ങനെയുള്ള ഒരാൾക്ക് മേൽവരിയിലെ   treatment ആദ്യം തുടങ്ങിയാൽ കാര്യമായി treatment result കിട്ടില്ല”.  When we go through the deposition of PW2 we cannot get a definite opinion with regard to the treatment protocol of Bimaxillary orthodontics treatment. It is also to be noted that when we peruse Ext. A3 payment slip which is issued by PW2 we can see that the treatment began on 18/05/2016 and the last visit was scheduled on 10/11/2016.  On the basis of the evidence in this case it is pertinent to see that the time needed for Bimaxillary protrusion treatment is one and a half year to two years.  Therefore we can come to a clear conclusion to the effect that the PW1 approached PW2 for further treatment only when the prior treatment was somewhat completed as assured by 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Nobody can complete a treatment of Bimaxillary protrusion within a short period of four or five months.   At this stage we can consider the evidence adduced by DW2 in this case.  DW2 is one Dr. Elbe Peter who is working as Associated Professor, Government Dental College, Kottayam and possessed BDS and MDS in Orthodontics treatment.  In-cross he answered “സാധാരണ ഗതിയിൽ മേൽ വരിയിലേയോ കീഴ്വരിയിലേയോ പല്ലുകൾ പൊങ്ങി നിന്നാൽ  treatment  തുടങ്ങുന്നത്  താഴ്വരിയിലെ പല്ലുകൾക്ക് തന്നെയല്ലേ?  അല്ല  Ans. താഴ്വരിയിലെ പല്ലുകൾ കമ്പി ഇട്ട് താഴ്ത്തിയ ശേഷം മാത്രം  മേൽവരിയിലെ പല്ലുകൾ കമ്പിയിട്ടാൽ മാത്രമല്ലേ treatment വിജയിക്കുകയുള്ളൂ. ശരിയല്ല.An) നിരതെറ്റി നിൽക്കുന്ന പല്ലുകൾ കമ്പിയിട്ടാൽ ഒരേ നിലയിലാക്കാൻ കഴിയും.  He adds അതിനു മുമ്പ്  pre requisite നടപടികൾ ചെയ്യേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. അത് പല്ലുപറിച്ച് വിടവുണ്ടാക്കലാണ് ”.   When we examine the testimony of DW2 we can see that the clear protocol for Bimaxillary treatment is the removal of the teeth first for getting a sufficient space for applying brackets for continuing the treatment.  He is also answered a question in re-examination “Bimaxillary Protrusion treatment with traumatic bite ഉള്ള കേസ്സുകളിൽ എത്ര പല്ലുകൾ എടുത്താൽ treatment ആരംഭിക്കാം. മുകളിൽ നിന്നും താഴെനിന്നും  2 പല്ലുകൾ വീതം എടുക്കണം”. According to DW2 as per Ext. B4 the 2^nd opposite party followed clear protocol for Bimaxillary Protrusion treatment with traumatic bite and no deficiency in service can be attributed against 2^nd opposite party on the basis of the Ext. B4 outpatient records.  When we evaluate the deposition of DW1 (2^nd opposite party) in this case we can see that he filed his proof affidavit as per the tune of his version before this Forum.  According to DW1 he followed all necessary protocol for a Bimaxillary Protrusion with traumatic bite and he has taken 23 months for the progress of the treatment.  Though the patient not co-operated with DW1 for several occasions and also broken appliances (bracket) he was succeeded in his treatment and 90% of the protrusion problems of the treatment was solved within the time limit of two years.  If we go through the testimony of DW1 in cross examination we cannot see any material contradiction or any piece of evidence to discard the proof affidavit of DW1.  It is also evident to see that at the last stage of the treatment somehow or other the complaint was not ready to continue with the treatment, with 1^st opposite party’s hospital.  We can see that at the last stage of treatment the 1^st opposite party has asked another Rs. 15,000/-from PW1.  It is true that the opposite parties did not admit the demand of Rs. 15,000/- for the subsequent treatment as pleaded by the complainant.  It is pertinent to see that when PW1 lodged this complaint before the Forum he did not make the 2^nd opposite party as a party to these proceedings and not alleged any deficiency in service against this 2^nd opposite party.  If the complainant had any grievances or objection against 2^nd opposite party he would have mentioned this fact at the time of filing the petition before the Forum.  It is so important to see that though the complainant impleaded additional 2^nd opposite party in the party array as per the order in I.A.96/2016 but the complainant failed to amend the complaint alleging any deficiency in service against 2^nd opposite party.  When we go through the relief portion we can see that the prayer of the complainant is only this much “ആയതിനാൽ മേൽപറഞ്ഞ സ്ഥാപനത്തിൻറെ വീഴ്ചമൂലം എനിക്കു നാലു പല്ലുകൾ നഷ്ടമാകുകയും 1,00,000/- രൂപയുടെ സാമ്പത്തികനഷ്ടം ഉണ്ടാവുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട് എൻറെ കഷ്ടനഷ്ടങ്ങൾക്ക് നഷ്ടപരിഹാരമായി ആകെ 1,00,000 രൂപ എതിർ കക്ഷിയിൽ നിന്നും ഈടാക്കിത്തരുന്നതിനുള്ള നടപടിക്കായി അപേക്ഷിച്ചുകൊള്ളുന്നു”.   The prayer portion of the proof affidavit is also vague with regard to any relief against 2^nd opposite party.  In order to substantiate the case of the 2^nd opposite party the counsel produced a decision of our Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 3541 of 2002.  The dictum of the decision is as follows: “Whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Forum(Whether District, State of National) or by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned doctor/hospital”.  When we go through the decision it is to see that when proceedings of medical negligence are initiating against a doctor the Forum concerned should obtain clear report from another expert doctor or from an expert committee.  As discussed earlier we are also not going to find any medical negligence against 2^nd opposite party doctor in this case.  Therefore this decision is not binding to this case.  In order to draw the attention of this Forum the opposite party’s counsel produced abstract of Bimaxillary Protrusion treatment.  When we go through this extract it is stated ‘typical orthodontics treatment includes retraction and retroclination of maxillary and mandaebular incisors after extraction of the first premolars’.  In the light of this explanation we can again confirm that the treatment protocol adopted by 2^nd opposite party in this case is proper and in accordance with medical protocol.

11.  As discussed earlier the demand for an amount of Rs. 15,000/- at the last stage of this treatment on the part 1^st opposite party has not been seen justifiable.  It is an admitted case that this PW1 &1^st opposite party entered an agreement for the protrusion treatment for an amount of Rs.13,000/-.  The further demand of the amount caused somewhat difficulty and hardship to the complainant.  As a result the complainant has to pay another Rs.9,500/- to PW2 for the completion of the treatment.  The 1^st opposite party has committed an unfair trade practice against the complainant PW1 by asking the subsequent amount.  Therefore we find that the complaint can be allowed in part and no deficiency in service can be attributed against 2^nd opposite party in this case and he has to be ex-onerated from all charges.  Point No.2 and 3 are also found accordingly.

12.   In the result, we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st opposite party is here by directed to pay an amount of Rs. 9,500/- (Rupees Nine Thousand and Five Hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.
2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.7,500/-(Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) and a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.   

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of December, 2017.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                  P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)    :       (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Sajin Sadhu

PW2  :  Dr. Anitha Aan Markose

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Appointment card dated: 16/04/2014

A2 series :  Copy of petitions.

A3 : The statement of account dated: nil.   

A4 : Doctor’s education certificate Dr. Deepthi.P and Dr. Reji Abraham

A5 series: 1^st opposite party filed a petition before DSP of Police Pathanamthitta.     

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : Dr. Reji Abraham

DW2 : Dr. Elbe Peter

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil

B1 : Certificate of BDS issued by 2^nd opposite party. 

B2 : Certificate of MDS orthodontics issued by 2^nd opposite party.

B3 : Clinic license of Dr. Deepthi.

B4 : Treatment records. 

                                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to :- (1) Sajin Sadhu,

                     Kavil Parayil Veedu,

                     Naranganam West P.O, Kozhencherry,

                     Pathanamthitta.

      (2)  Dr. Deepthi Reji,

       Kottackal Multispecialty Dental Clinic,

       Kumbazha North, Mylapra P.O,

       Pathanamthitta.

3. Dr. Reji Abraham,

       Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics Specialist,

       Vadakkedathu House,

       Nedumkunnam P.O, Kottayam – 686542.

(4) The Stock File.