AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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, a compensation of ` 50,000/- to the Complainant and ` 5,000/- towards cost.
THE case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that he had taken his 8 years old son on 19.06.2002 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 10.09.2002. 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. 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.
The case of the Revision Petitioner before us is that the finding of the State Commission in the appeal is on a matter, which was not even agitated before the District Forum. The Revision Petitioner claims, At the stage of appeal, the power of the appellate court is restricted to the facts and material admitted between the parties and the findings rendered by the court below. We do not accept this plea as the finding of the State Commission is directly based on the records produced before the District Forum. There is no fresh evidence admitted at the appellate stage. The concern of the State Commission becomes very clear when we see the letterhead of the prescription of 19.06.2002 in this case. It clearly says- Dr. M.Kumar, B.D.S. Reg. No.145/99 This letterhead would convey only one meaning to the reader viz. that the person concerned has a degree of Bachelor of Dental Sciences, recognized by the Dental Council of India and authorized to practice dentistry including prescribing of medicines as done by the Revision Petitioner in this case. By no stretch of imagination, the letterhead can explain the true position as it comes from the admission of the Revision Petitioner himself before the District Form- I am BDS from Indian Board of Alternative Medicine. The office of which is in Delhi. It is not recognized by the Indian Dental Association. I have the certificate with me I can produce it. Medicine_ illegible _cross examination is further deferred for the next date.
WHILE presenting his case before us, the Revision Petitioner has shown the certificate referred to above. According to this Certificate, having passed the relevant examination in 1998, the Revision Petitioner is entitled to use the designation B.D.S. (Alt.) for the development of alternative medical system. Thus, going by his own admission and record of the case, the Revision Petitioner can call himself B.D.S (Alt.) only and not B.D.S. The State Commission has therefore, rightly concluded that this is a case of the Revision Petitioner/OP being liable for false and misleading representation and unfair trade practice, within the meaning of Section 2(r) of the Consumer Protection Act. In view of the examination above, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. There are no grounds to justify our intervention in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.