BABANDEEP KAUR Vs. BRIG S C ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's appeal filed against judgment and order dated 13.1.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. , Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in her Complaint Case No.331 of 2000 against Dr. (Brig.) S. C. Anand (Retd.), Orthodontist, BRS Hospital (City Centre), SCO No.913, Housing Board Chowk, Manimajra (UT), Chandigarh and New India Assurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as the Assurance Company), SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh, which has been dismissed by the District Forum holding that there was no medical negligence on the part of respondent No.1-Dr. S. C. Anand.

(2.) The complainant at the time of filing of the complaint was minor aged about 16 years and it was filed through her maternal grand father S. Gurbax Singh. Ms. Babandeep Kaur, the appellant, when she was aged around 7 years in 1990 had the problem of her teeth protrusion and required alignment by dental surgeon. Se remained under observation of Dental Wing of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as PGI) for the period from 25.8.1990 to 20.6.1997 allowing the nature to play its part before any appropriate decision could be taken for providing dental care by the dental surgeon. It was on 20.6.1997 that the doctors of PGI, Chandigarh advised orthodontic treatment. The complainant was taken to BRS Hospital, a branch of BRS Institute of Medical Sciences, Kot Billa, Distt. Panchkula, Haryana on 5.9.1997. The complainant was shown for treatment by the dental surgeon to respondent No.1 Dr. S. C. Anand, Principal of the Dental College of BRS Institute. Two impressions of the complainant's teeth of both the jaws, upper and lower, were taken and respondent No.1-Dr. S. C. Anand advised extraction of four teeth i. e. , tooth No.4 each from the four regions of the mouth. A sum of Rs.3,500/- was deposited as part payment of the treatment. On 12.9.1997, the respondent No.1-Dr. S. C. Anand extracted two teeth from the upper jaw.

(3.) The contention of the complainant was that Dr. S. C. Anand acted irresponsibly and carelessly and during the process, he put drops of sprit in her eyes and exposed her eye-sight to grave risk. It was also alleged that the tooth No.14 should not have been extracted at all because tooth No.12 was cogentally missing and there was congestion in region No.1.