SANDEEP VERMA Vs. KRISHAN LAL NANDWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the OP against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh dated 6.10.2008 passed in complaint case No. 300 of 2008. The contextual facts in brief are as under.

(2.) IN his case before the Forum, the complainant Sh. Krishan Lal Nandwani set up a case of negligence in treatment of dental problems by Dr. Sandeep Verma. It is stated that OP doctor advised him to get the teeth Nos. 14, 15, 16, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 46 implanted. It is the say of the complainant that out of total fee payable Rs. 15,750, Rs. 5000 were paid in advance and balance amount of Rs. 10,750 were paid on 2.1.2008, as per copy of prescription and receipt of payment on record as Annexure C -1. The complainant has averred that he felt uneasiness as the implanted teeth were causing pain in the gums and were not properly fixed. The complainant visited the doctor time and again bringing to his notice the improper fitting of the teeth, however he was assured that the same will get set after some time but there was no improvement and he had severe pain in the gums for which some gum paint was applied as per advice of the doctor. He again visited the doctor who advised that remedy is to cut a cap over the teeth for extracting the implanted teeth, otherwise the teeth can break. It is stated by the complainant that he did not agree to the advice of the doctor and left his clinic. Thereafter he visited another doctor who extracted the teeth implanted in a faulty manner by the OP doctor. It is alleged that the next doctor cut a cap as the teeth implanted by OP doctor were not getting proper support of caping. The complainant has alleged that he spent another amount of Rs. 2000 for treatment by the next doctor. It is alleged by the complainant that the OP doctor is not properly qualified and is misleading the patients by claiming himself to be a dental surgeon. Legal notice was served upon the OP doctor, copy of which is Annexure C -2. It is alleged by the complainant that the cover/envelop of notice shows that it was returned in a mutilated condition which leads to be conclusion that contents of the envelope were read and returned thereafter sometime. It is alleged by the complainant that Dr.Verma is not duly authorized to run the clinic under the law as he is not a qualified doctor. The complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 70,750 and a prayer has been made to take a suitable action against the respondent in case the Forum comes to a conclusion that he is not duly authorized to run the dental clinic, as per law.

(3.) IN the reply filed by the OP doctor, the preliminary objections taken is that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. It is also submitted that doctor never treated the complainant and no services were rendered due to which the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that complaint has been filed on the basis of a cancelled/scored out estimate/advice on the letterhead of the doctor. The complainant could not show that any services were hired by him on account of which, his complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is stated that Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as no services were availed and relationship of consumer and the service provider is not established. In reply on merits, para No. 1 is denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that complainant took advice and estimate of the expenses for bridging of teeth Nos. 14, 15, 16, 33, 34, 35, 44, 45, 46 for which amount of Rs. 15,750 approximately was to be charged. It is stated that the complainant showed reluctance and the same was scored out. It is denied that any treatment was given. It is alleged that the complainant is misleading the Court as the estimate and advice written on a letter pad (C -1) scored out later on, is being misused. It is submitted that annexure C -1 is not a prescription slip but a cancelled estimate and advice on the letter pad of the respondent. It is submitted that a perusal of the cancelled bill shows that the OP advised the complainant to get his 9 teeth bridged and there is no mention of implantation. It is denied that any medication or trial on the teeth of the complainant was done. It is submitted that implantation and bridge are two different treatments, the complainant has used these terms to mislead the Court. The averment that the OP is not a qualified doctor is not only defamatory but also amounts to doubting the integrity of respondent. It is submitted that he is holding a degree of Bachelor of Dental Surgery by the Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla and is registered with Punjab Dental Council, as proved by the copies of degree and certificate of registration on record vide Annexure R -3 and R -4. The receipt of the notice as alleged has been denied. It is reiterated that advice was given free of cost. A prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint with heavy costs as the complainant is trying to misuse the process of law.