DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPURTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1750 of 2020
Date of institution: 03.11.2020 Date of decision : 19.10.2021
G.S. Chhabra S/o Late Shri Bishan Singh, resident of House No. 522, Phase-10, Mohali.
……Complainant
Versus
1. Management of Guru Harkrishan Sahib (c) Eye Hospital Trust, Sohana (Known as Sohana Hospital).
2. Dr. Inderdeep Tuli, BDS (Dental Surgeon) of Advance Dental Care Centre, Sohana Hosptial, Sector-77, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Ms. Gagandeep Gosal, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
OP No.1 Ex-parte.
Ms. Geetanjali, counsel for OP No.2.
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
ORDER
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short), on the ground that he is a resident of Mohali and is an old man. The CC approached the hospital of the OPs at Sohana for implanting a Denture on 26.03.2019 since his own brother Sh.Madan Singh Chhabra had told him the rates charged by the hospital for implanting the Denture and as such he opted specifically for this hospital. The CC paid Rs. 10,000/- for the preparation of the Denture. It is further alleged that on approaching the hospital, he was quoted three rates i.e. Rs.6,500/-, Rs.10,000 and Rs.15,000/- and as such he had the three options. Accordingly, he opted for the denture costing Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that OP No.2 persuaded the CC for the denture costing Rs.15,000/-. The CC became double minded. Ultimately on the assurance given by OP No.2, he opted to go for the denture costing Rs.15,000/-. The CC visited the hospital for eight times for measurements and reshaping etc. It is further alleged that on 08.04.2020 while cleaning the denture with a brush and soap solution, the lower denture slipped from his hand and fell on the floor of the bath room and broken into two pieces. It had fallen from 12 inches from the floor. It is further alleged that on 08.04.2020, Mohali was under lockdown and it was not possible for him to approach the OPs for repairs of the Denture and as such he called OP No.1 but it was informed that the hospital was closed. Finding no alternative, CC sought the help of the police to collect the broken denture and delivered it to Dr. Gurminder Singh MDS of Dental Care Clinic, Sector 68 for repair and the same was delivered to the CC. It is further alleged that on 30th July while eating fruits, one of the teeth got separated from the denture plate. On 7th August while taking breakfast, another teeth also got separated from the denture plate. Yet on another occasion on 13th October another teeth separated from the denture plate while taking breakfast and as such the CC had to visit Dental Care Clinic, Sector 68, four times during a period of six months for the repair of the denture. It is further alleged that only on the persuasion of OP No.2, the CC opted for the denture costing of Rs. 15,000/- instead of going for cheaper one. The CC has further termed the bill as highly inflated.
Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought refund of Rs. 15,000/- , compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-. Complaint of the CC is verified and supported by an affidavit.
2. OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte which is the hospital from where the complainant took the treatment.
3. In reply OP No.2 has challenged the veracity of the complaint on the ground of maintainability and has further stated that the CC has not approached this Commission with clean hands. Even in the preliminary objections, OP No.2 has tried to shift the burden on OP No.1 by terming the same as master servant relationship. OP No.2 has further stated that she has not worked as an independent agent and rather she was paid employee of OP No.1. OP No.2 has further stated that OP No.1 is aware about the case but OP No.1 has not paid any heed to contest the case. OP No.2 has further admitted that the denture had fallen from certain height and due to that reason the same was broken. OP No.2 has further stated that there is negligence on the part of the CC and even OP No.1 cannot be held liable for the negligence of the CC. OP No.2 has further stated that no cause of action has arisen against OP No.2 who is an independent employee. OP No.2 has no concern with the administrative work of the hospital. Thus alleging no deficiency in service on her part, OP No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4. The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit and supporting documents. On the other OP No.2 has submitted in evidence her affidavit only.
5. We have heard the complainant and OP No.2 and have gone through the record of the case.
6. The point in controversy involved in this case is that whether breaking of implanted denture of the CC was due to use of sub quality material by the OPs resulting into the breaking of the denture and at the same time the OPs are deficient in rendering proper services to the CC. Further there is malpractice on the part of the OPs or not.
7. To our mind one of the most common problems with implant of dentures is that it creates imbalanced forces when somebody bites or chews. This problem is quite common with traditional dentures. At the same time, we feel that modern dentistry understands that dental implants can be much stronger than natural tooth roots and are capable of supporting significantly more force but the main problem with implanted dentures is that they are made of materials that are too weak to withstand the bite forces or they get broken even if fall from a very little height.
8. Now the question is when OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte to whom the money had gone from the pocket of the CC and moreover the OPs have not come forward to rebut the allegations of the CC by submitting proper evidence, in that event we have no alternative except to believe the contents of the complaint to be genuine and confidence aspiring. We feel, it was incumbent upon the OPs to bring sufficient evidence on the file to prove that a very high quality material was used, while preparing the implanted denture and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
9. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that the OPs had given three options to the CC to chose a denture having three different prices and the CC opted for the most expensive one. These three options were given by OP No.2. This shows that OP No.2 was fully conversant with the fact that the material used or supplied to her by OP No.1 was not of very high quality and it was possible that the denture could break even if it falls from very little height. It was also incumbent upon the OPs to bring some scientific or expert evidence on the file to rebut the contentions of the CC mentioned in the complaint. In the absence of cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence on the part of the OPs, we have no alternative except to believe that the allegations of the CC are true, correct and genuine. It is also an admitted fact that the CC is an old man and had to undergo mental as well as physical harassment from the hands of the OPs. The CC even leveled allegations against the OPs of their behavior and totally discarding him after treatment. The contents of the complaint which are duly supported by an affidavit appear to be cogent and reliable. Deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 is writ large on the file.
10. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed in favour of the CC and against OP No.1. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 who is simply a doctor and OP No.2 cannot be made liable for the acts of OP No.1. Accordingly, it is ordered that OP No.1 will refund the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) to the CC along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receiving the amount. OP No.1 will also pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the CC to the tune of Rs.1500/- (Rs. Fifteen Hundred only) for mental agony and harassment suffered by him. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
October 19, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
I agree.
(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)
Member
