Haryana

StateCommission

A/889/2019

RAJENDER SHRIDHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

PT. B.D.SHARMA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER BAKSHI

01 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.889 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 07.10.2019

                                                         Date of Final Hearing: 01.09.2022

Date of pronouncement: 05.12.2022

 

Rajender Shridhar S/o Sh. Hari Chand Shridhar, r/o H.No.1, New Colony Extension, Palwal, Haryana.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS., Rohtak, through its Director Principal Dental College.
2. Dr. Anshul Chug, Professor, Dental Department, Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS., Rohtak.
3. Dr.Manisha Kukreja, Professor Orthodontics, Dental Department, Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak.
4. Dr.Rangesing Ratwa, Dental Department,  Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS., Rohtak.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Rajender Shridhar appellant in person.

                   Respondent Nos.1 to 4 already ex parte.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.889 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 04.09.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.472 of 2017, which was dismissed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that in the year 2015, complainant went for four new tooth implants from opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.15,000/- per implant from him, which of course was illegal and wrong. He paid OPD charges to OP No.1.  In the year 2016 OP No.1 and 2 conducted CBCT test of complainant.  On 20.09.2016 OP No.2 through his assistant accepted illegal gratification of Rs.14,000/-.  OP No.4 prescribed for some medicines and material or articles which were to be used during surgery, which was purchased from outside private medical store.  On 20.09.2016, four implants were inserted in his jaws by OP No.4 as per direction of OP No.2.  On 16.11.2016, healing screw were also put in place.  After surgery, complainant started experiencing teeth grinding problem (bruxism) during his sleep. As advised he purchased night guard sheet of 3mm as prescribed by OP No.3, but somehow or the other, the same was retained by herself and tried to offer him a damaged and defective and under sized took guard of Imm only.  The complainant deposited Rs.4000/- in the account of OP No.4  alongwith Rs.4000/- cash total amounting to Rs.8000/-.  On 23.12.2016, OP No.4 tried to place teeth without abutment and tried to take out implant.  During treatment, doctor’s assistant loosened the healing screws  as the teeth caused heavy infection for almost two months. The complainant requested the OPs to carry out the requisite rectifications in the treatment, but, to no avail. The implants were made by OPs without planning. The treating doctors asked him to take treatment from somewhere for the reasons best known to them.  Thus there was deficiency as well as negligence in service on the part of the OPs.

3.      O.P.Nos.1 to 3 filed reply. It was submitted that OP Nos. 1 and 2 had never ever demanded any such amount much less Rs.15000/- as illegal gratification. It was denied that patient was not treated. It was also stoutly denied that any money was demanded from the patient. OP NO.4 was a PG student of OP No.1 and that being so possibly there could have been no dealing between complainant and OP No.4. The patient was not asked to buy any medicine from outside market. Only four implants were purchased from outside as these implants and supporting equipment were not available in the department.   The complainant was already wearing some appliances, which perhaps were purchased by the complainant from outside. The complainant has concealed all these material facts.   The bioplast sheet was kept on the biostar machine and split was fabricated and after finishing, it was delivered to him, but he started shouting that his sheet has been damaged though it was rectified. As per instructions of OP NO.1, the patient has delivered the appliance and the entry was done in the card. The treatment of the patient was planned as conventional procedure. As per X-ray, the implant has been successful. Thus there was no deficiency as well as negligence on the part of the OPs.  OP NO.4 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 28.09.2017.

4.      After hearing the counsel for the complainant, the learned District Commission, Rohtak has dismissed the complaint vide order dated 04.09.2019.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Rajender Shridhar-complainant-appellant in person.  With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

7.      The complainant-appellant himself argued that  due to negligence of the treating doctors, the implants affixed by the treating doctors were unsuccessful and due to this reason, the complainant-appellant has suffered a loss.

8.      Perusal of the file shows that on 12.02.2019, the PGIMER Chandigarh constituted a board of doctors to establish the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OPs while giving tooth implants treatment to the complainant.  As per the report submitted by board of doctors dated 15.03.2019, there was no negligence on the part of the doctors as the panel of doctors have found and concluded that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors.   There is no material brought on record to rebut the above stated conclusion arrived at by the experts in this field.

9.                In view of the above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.  Learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

10.              Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

11.    Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

 

5th  December, 2022  Suresh Chander Kaushik                    S. P. Sood                                                         Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)