R K TRIKA Vs. KARAMJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.1.2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula whereby the complaint filed by the complainant against the respondent-opposite party had been dismissed.

(2.) In order to decide the appeal essential facts need to be noticed in the forefront. Daughter of the complainant Km. Piyush was given Orthodontic treatment during the period 7.4.1997 to 14.5.1998 by the opposite party. During treatment her extra oral force was removed for the retention of plate which was to be fixed to maintain the complete improvement. Instead of any improvement, the daughter of the complainant suffered on account of swollen gums which also affected her aesthetic look. She then contacted the other hospital i.e. B.R.S. Hospital, Panchkula, P.G.I, and General Hospital, Chandigarh which totally discarded with the treatment given to her by opposite party. She was treated for the swollen gums at P.G.I. The daughter of the complainant being a student of 11th Class, was compelled to visit P.G.I. Chandigarh, which affected her studies. Alleging negligence in the treatment given to the daughter of the complainant by the opposite party, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till date of payment and Rs. 2,000 as litigation expenses.

(3.) The complaint was contested by the opposite party. Preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint and want of jurisdiction of the District Forum to try the complaint as the dispute raised involved complicated question of law and recording of expert evidence were raised. On merits it was pleaded that he had given orthodontic treatment to the daughter of the complainant in Jan., 1997 and had informed the complainant that her was a case of Class II Division 1 Sub-Division malocclusion. She had suffered from gingival hypertrophy and her gums were bleeding and pus discharge was there. She was advised treatment from a periodontist before starting treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances with KLOHENS FACEBOW with cervical strap i.e. headgear. He has further averred that Km. Piyush used to say that she would not wear headgear along with fixed appliance therapy despite being informed that wearing of Headgear was essential if she wanted orthodontic treatment from him. Thereafter, she had left his clinic. He further stated that after the expiry of two months, the complainant approached him and informed him that she had consulted Dr. Ritu Jindal, Sector-7, Panchkula and got the treatment from her who had suggested that she would get the treatment done from her as she would treat her by extracting two premolars from her upper jaw. At that time he had informed the father of the complainant that the treatment suggested by the aforesaid doctor was not agreeable to him and the complainant was advised to get treatment from the doctor at her own risk. However, after a gap of about one month, the complainant again approached the opposite party and informed him that his daughter had agreed to wear headgear and he wanted orthodontic treatment from him. The complainant had agreed to pay Rs. 9,000 as fee of the opposite party, out of which 50% were to be paid at the start of the treatment. At that time, the complainant informed him that he had not been able to consult any periodontist as there was no one in the specialty practising in Panchkula or Chandigarh. It was further asserted by him that scaling, and oral prophylaxis was done by him in April, 1997 and her impressions were taken and models were made on 29.4.1997, which showed that she had fibramatous enlargement of gums before her orthodontic treatment was started by him. He also stated that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2,500 on 30.4.1997 and the balance amount was promised to be paid to him on the next sitting i.e. 29.5.1997 but the payment was not made to him. He maintained that CARYS MODEL analysis was done on the models of Km. Piyush and it was found that total tooth material was 6.47 cms., Arch Perimeter was 6.25 cms. and arch length deficiency was 2.2 mm. He further stated that in such cases no extraction of teeth is done for orthodontic treatment and in support thereof relied upon the Text Book of orthodontics by MS M.S. RANI and S.I. BHAIAJH. His further case is that Incisor Mandibular plane angle was clinically observed to be within normal values of 95 to 105 degree and this angle being in normal limits and in such cases no extraction of any tooth is done for orthodontic treatment. Further according to him, Km. Piyush visited his clinic 10 times and on every sitting she was informed to get her gums treated from a periodontist. In order to help her he got her examined from Dr. Brig. S.C. Anand, Director Principal B.R.S. Dental College, Panchkula and as per his advice appointment was fixed for her examination from Dr. C. Shakir who is a Professor of Periodontics and used to visit his college from Bombay. Accordingly, Dr. C. Shakir examined Km. Piyush in the presence of Dr. Meet Kamal, Lecturer in Periodontics Department and advised gingivectomy i.e. surgical removal of the hyper-trophied gingiva on his next visit to the college and the complainant was informed about the date of visit of Dr. C. Shakir and the appointment was to be fixed. The complainant informed him that he had taken the L.T.C. and was visiting Goa and for that reason could not bring his daughter for the operation. He thus suggested for another date for her operation on next visit of Dr. C. Shakir. It is further stated that the complainant was not serious about the treatment of his daughter though another date for operation of Km. Piyush was got fixed from Dr. C. Shakir during his next visit. On that occasion prophylaxis and deep curratage was done by Dr. Meet Kamal as was advised by Dr. C. Shakir twice before the operation. The complainant was informed about the exact date of arrival of Dr. C. Shakir for Km. Piyushs gingivectomy upon which the opposite party was informed that he had consulted the doctors of P.G.I. who had communicated to him that there was no need for any gingival surgery. It is the further case of the opposite party that on the basis of data made available on the OPD card No. 868250 dated 21.2.1998 issued by the P.G.I., it would be noticed that she had been suffering from chronic generalised gingivitis and had halitosis and poor oral hygiene. On that basis she was operated upon by the doctors of P.G.I. on 26.8.1998 and that too not by any specialist in Periodontology as no periodontologist has been provided on the faculty of P.G.I. This was the same operation which had been advised by the opposite party to the daughter of the complainant in Aug., 1997 which has been delayed deliberately by the complainant. It was thus pleaded by the opposite party that he had properly diagnosed the disease and prescribed the medicines and it is the daughter of the complainant who had not taken necessary precautions and treatment advised by him and the delay of more than one year is entirely due to fault of the daughter of the complainant. It was further claimed by him that he was earlier posted as Seniormost Orthodentist of Army, Navy and Air Force at the time of retirement. He had also been an examiner in Orthodontics at Armed Forces Medical College, Pune for many years. Thereafter, from Oct., 1995 he had worked as Assistant Professor of Orthodontics at B.R.S. Dental College, Kotbilla, Panchkula and during the period of more than 35 years of his professional work not a single complaint was made against him by any body. Thus, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum found no substance in the complaint and accordingly dismissed the same as per order dated 16.1.2001. It is against this order, the present appeal has been filed.