AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
The Revision Petition has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner Bharat Shastri (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant or Appellant”) against the Impugned Order dated 20.10.2016 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 203/2015 for enhancement of compensation as the State Commission has partly modified the Order dated 07.05.2014 passed by District Forum.
The issue relates to the alleged medical negligence during the dental treatment of the Complainant / Petitioner.
The case of the Complainant that he underwent dental treatment i.e. Crown, Composing filling, Scaling and Polishing Lower RPD from Dr. Anand Krishnamurthy ( the OP) at Citizen Dental Clinics in Navi Mumbai.
The District Forum held the OP liable for deficiency in services and directed to return the amount of Rs.14,000/- paid by the Complainant towards the treatment along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards cost.
Being aggrieved by the quantum of Compensation, the Complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission which modified the Order of District Forum and the appeal was partly allowed. The State Commission enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.50,000/- and further awarded Rs.14,000/- with 9% p.a. interest payable w.e.f. January 2010 and the rest of Order of District Forum was confirmed.
The Complainant again dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, filed this Revision Petition.
Heard the learned Counsel on both the sides and perused the material on record.
The Learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that, the Complainant was a teacher by profession who requires fluency of speech. Due to the negligent treatment of OP, the Complainant was facing great difficulties during teaching. Therefore, he was compelled to undergo corrective therapy at D. Y. Patil Dental College and spent huge amount. Therefore, the Complainant deserves enhanced compensation.
The learned Counsel for the OP vehemently argued that that after fixing of the temporary crown, the Complainant miserably failed to take the further follow-up treatment. Even after repeated reminders and telephonic calls to the Complainant, he did not turn up for more than 10 (Ten) months. All the efforts to contact the Complainant have gone in vain. The Complainant deliberately avoided for continuation of the treatment in order to put onus and the blame on OP. The patient can not alter the treatment plan at his will and convenience. The OP- Dr. Krishnamurthy had fixed the treatment schedule as per the standard of practice. He further submitted that the Orion Crown so ordered by him for the treatment of the Complainant is made of specific size and dimensions so that the same can be fixed with the teeth of the patient.
It is evident from the record that the Complainant, after more than 10 months, again visited the OP with the broken teeth and crown. Therefore, it was not to fix the Orion Crown as ordered. Due to such delay the teeth changed its contour, size and shape. The Complainant’s teeth were broken and to fix any crown, it was important to level the teeth. As the teeth were very small, it was important to provide the support with the rod for fixing of the Crown, which is the standard practice in the dentistry.
I have carefully perused the treatment record of D. Y. Patil Dental College. The Complainant was treated thereunder conservative and periodontics treatment. He was suffering from chronic pulpitis due to PFM Crowns. It is evident from the evidence of the Complainant that the OP fixed PFM Crowns without the informed consent of the Complainant. Moreover, the upper front teeth were destroyed and it was shown to the assisting staff and the helper boys. In my view, it itself amounts to disclosure of confidentiality or privacy of the patient.
The instant case is of ‘Contributory Negligence’, the Complainant himself was negligent who did not follow the treatment schedule and instructions of the OP. Therefore, he deserves no further enhancement. In my view the State Commission award was justified to be just and proper. Both the fora below have given concurrent findings of facts and I do not find prima facie any jurisdictional, error illegality or material irregularity in the Orders passed by the fora below warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. I would like to rely upon the precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases viz. ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[ 2011 11 SCC 269] and ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’[Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]
Based on the discussion above, the Revision Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.