M KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. M. Kumar, the Revision Petitioner has challenged the order of Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. 255/2004. The State Commission has set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the Revision Petitioner/OP, to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant and Rs. 5,000 towards cost.

(2.) The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that he had taken his 8 years old son on 19.6.2002 to the RP/OP to show the dental condition of his son. The child had two teeth growing behind two existing teeth in the lower jaw. As the frontal teeth were creating problem, the Revision Petitioner advised removal of the old teeth and performed the extraction. However, the next day he found that actually all four teeth had been removed. When he rushed to the clinic of the Revision Petitioner/OP it was explained to him as a mistake, with the OP assuring that fresh teeth will grow within three weeks. When the fresh teeth did not grow as assured, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Gopalganj on 10.9.2002. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the Complainant has not produced any ex-Ray report and not examined any expert witness. Therefore, the claim was not proved.

(3.) In the appeal filed by the Complainant before the State Commission, the Commission observed that the Respondent/OP had, in his rejoinder before the District Forum, admitted the fact that he has no degree of B.D.S. or M.B.B.S. He had obtained degree in alternative medicine, which is not recognized by M.C.I. Yet he was practicing medicine in the name of "Dr. M. Kumar B.D.S." from his clinic named "Kumar Dental Health Care Centre". The Commission therefore, held him liable for making a false representation under Section 2(r)(ii) and Section 2(r)(vi). Holding this to be a case of unfair trade practice, the State Commission has imposed the penalty as above.