Per Hon’ble DR. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member. 

1)     This is a complaint filed by the complainant Mr.M.P.Shelke against Dr.Sayyed Abrar who is dentist. Initially the complaint was filed before the State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench at Amravati which was transferred to State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench at Nagpur on 11/10/2019. The complainant was treated by the O.P./doctor who is dentist, while treating his painful teeth, there was alleged negligence by doctor and hence for seeking compensation for the alleged wrong treatment given by O.P./doctor, complainant has filed this complaint. 

2)        The brief facts of this complaint are as follows:-

          Complainant approached O.P./dentist doctor from Amravati on 29/07/2014. According to advise of the doctor, complainant under went the treatment. Complainant’s one tooth was extracted and another artificial tooth was implanted at the same place. Complainant suffered very pain after the implantation of tooth and there was pain during the chewing and also because of sharpness of new tooth there was frequent injury to his tongue. Aggrieved by suffering even after the treatment was given by the O.P./dentist, the complainant filed consumer complaint in the State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench at Amravati under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and prayed for awarding compensation to Rs.49,14,460/- as explained under various headings.      

3)    The O.P./dentist opposed this complaint by filing written statement. He denied the allegations as mentioned that the complainant was charged only Rs.1200/- towards treatment given to him. According to him the complainant was explained the treatment and that possibility of pain while the treatment was being given. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          The complainant was present in person while none present for O.P. In view of the complainant’s request to decide this complaint which was filed in the year 2016, the Bench decided to here the complainant in final hearing and documents that are filed on record written notes of argument are already filed on record.

4)       In view of the rival contentions of both the parties, submissions made by the complainant and perused the record, following points needs to be considered.

5)     Reasoning :- As to point No.(i)   :-   Since the complainant paid fees during consultation  and the treatment given by the O.P./dentist, the O.P. dentist has provided service for consideration and hence according Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complainant is a consumer of O.P.. Hence the answer of point No.(i) is affirmative.

6)    Reasoning :- As to point No.(ii)   :-   The complainant argued in person. He invited attention to this Commission to various documents filed on record. As per the submissions of the complainant, the O.P./dentist extracted his tooth and implanted new tooth and while chewing he did not get relief of the pain. Further he complaints that the sharpness of the implanted tooth injured his tongue frequently while chewing food and there is possibility of cancer of the tongue due to sharpness of the tooth. He further provided the names of documents which are filed while filing the complaint against the doctor. He prayed for deciding this long pending complaint on the basis of written notes of argument filed by him as well as the O.P. and award compensation as prayed in the complaint. On perusal of record, the complainant was treated by the O.P./dentist on 19/07/2014 and the treatment card filed by the complainant shows that the complainant visited doctor on next two dates i.e. 21 July and 28 July. As per the written notes filed by the O.P. the tooth of the complainant was extracted in a proper manner and new tooth was implanted by grinding the tooth for reducing sharpness. Further the O.P./doctor has specifically denied the allegation that he treated the complainant for extracting money. Actually the complainant paid only Rs.1,200/- only towards treatment. According to dentist as mentioned in the written statement the new tooth was implanted on 28/07/2014 and till this date when written notes of argument filed in the year 2021 he is using the same implanted tooth without any cancer to the tongue  or any problem. Hence the O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint in the written notes of argument.  

7)       On perusal of the record, complainant consulted the dentist at Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical Collage and Hospital Yavatmal on 28/07/2015 i.e. one year after he was treated by the O.P./dentist. (reference page No.40 of the compilation) which shows that there was no cutting of tongue due to sharp edge of tooth since one year findings mentioned that there was no mark of cutting seen on tongue and molar occlusion is normal. On perusal of record the complainant has not file any expert opinion supporting his contentions though he has consulted some of the other dentists at Government Dental Collage Nagpur for which certain treatment was advised. (reference page 33 and 34). It is also mentioned on the treatment card at Government Dental Collage at Nagpur that the patient was not willing for further treatment. In fact the patient has filed the complaint against the dentist in the police station stating that the dentist has performed wrong surgery. The dentist was called to the police station where he has also given statement that he has treated the complainant according to medical science. There are certain other documents which show that complainant who has filed complaint with various authorities  in his name depicting him as President of भ्रष्‍टाचार निर्मुलन जन आंदोलन समिती महाराष्‍ट्र. On the letterhead of this organization he has also filed complaint against the same doctor to the Health Minister of State of Maharashtra. He has also used the letterhead of ‘Anti Corruption and Crime Investigations Fund Delhi’ depicted him as State President of Maharashtra State. He also filed complaint to Civil Surgeon of Amravati, Dean of Medical Collage. In view of the documents submitted by the complainant who appeared in person, the complainant has also not filed any expert opinion regarding the treatment given by the O.P./doctor as well as negligence or deficiency in service by the doctor as mentioned in the documents page No.40. The complainant was examined by the Dental Department of Government Medical Collage at Yavatmal shows that the allegations by the complainant are false. In view of the discussions, documents on record and the submissions made by the complainant who was present in person, this Commission is of the opinion that there is no medical negligence in the treatment given to the complainant by the O.P./dentist as well as no deficiency in service. Hence the answer to the point No.(ii) is negative.  

8)     In view of the discussions above, since the complainant has not proved the medical negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment given by O.P/dentist to the complainant, complainant is not entitled for any compensation. Complaint appears to be frivolous complaint, hence the answer to the point No.(iii) is negative. 

9)      In view of the discussion above, the Commission passes following order.

// ORDER //

i)      Complaint is dismissed with cost to quantified to Rs.10,000/- to 

        be paid by the complainant to O.P./doctor.

ii)     Parties to bear their own costs.

iii) Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of                    cost.