S B TIWARI Vs. G PRANAV ADHYANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order dated 16.9.93 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry in Dispute No. 4/92. The respondent herein was the opposite party in the complaint.

(2.) THE case of The complainant was that he went to the clinic of the opposite party on 12.12.91 for the removal of a tooth and that without any case study or proper test, his tooth was removed on 14.12.91. On 15.12.91, he alongwith his wife went to the opposite party's clinic complaining about over bleeding and he was sent back home with some pain killers. Since bleeding did not stop, he went to Ashok Nursing Home where his blood pressure was found to be 220/160. After . treatment, bleeding stopped, but he had severe headache. On 24.12.91, he was advised to consult a Neurologist at Madras. He had consultations in three clinics in Madras and he was ultimately treated at Sri Balaji Hospital, Madras. The complainant prayed the State Commission to direct the opposite party to pay compensation for injury on account of careless and negligent treatment, for loss of income and mental agony. The opposite party stated that all usual precautions were taken while removing the upper tooth. The complainant did not disclose his health condition before extraction of tooth. His blood pressure was taken and found to be normal, the extraction was smooth and after extraction, the complainant was made to sit for sometime in the clinic and there was no abnormal bleeding. The complainant was sent home and provided with a notice indicating the steps to be taken by way of precaution. The opposite party also denied that the complainant came to see him on 15.12.91.

(3.) IN the Appeal, the complainant has reiterated the points he had raised before the State Commission. We have examined the available material on the record and heard the Counsel. We are convinced that the State Commission has gone into the evidence before it and the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and given sound reasons for its finding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent herein. We, therefore, confirm the order of the State Commission. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.