DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No. : CC/256/2014 Date of Institution : 15/04/2014 Date of Decision : 10/03/2015 Nirmala Devi w/o Sh. Manoj Kumar aged 37 years resident of House No.1161/A, Mouri Gate, M.M. Town, Chandigarh ..Complainant V E R S U S Dr. Rashmi Gupta, Rashmi Dental Clinic SCF-264 (Opp. Kerosene Oil Depot) Mani Majra, Chandigarh. Rashmi Dental Clinic SCF-264 (Opp. Kerosene Oil Depot), Mani Majra, Chandigarh through Dr. Rashmi Gupta. Opposite Parties QUORUM: P.L.AHUJA PRESIDENT MRS.SURJEET KAUR MEMBER ARGUED BY : Sh. R.C. Gupta, Counsel for complainant : Sh. Vishal Gupta, Authorised Agent for the OPs. PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT Smt. Nirmala Devi, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Dr. Rashmi Gupta and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging she that she is a self-employed lady doing the job of stitching etc. The complainant felt some dentistry problem on 23.7.2013 and approached the OPs for check-up, advice and treatment. After check-up, the OPs advised that a number of teeth shall have to undergo RTC (RCT?) treatment and one of them shall be uprooted. OP-1 did some procedure and took out one tooth, however, the complainant suffered a lot of pain and suffering. According to the complainant, she visited the clinic of the OP on 23.7.2013, 24.7.2013, 28.7.2013, 2.8.2013, 4.8.2013, 8.8.2013, 12.8.2013, 15.8.2013, 30.8.2013, 13.9.2013 and 20.9.2013 on the advice of the OPs for treatment and made payment of the charges. The complainant was told by the OPs that root canal treatment and other treatment was required and hence done by the OPs on various dates against payment of cash amount. It has been averred that the complainant has been following the prescription and advices of OP-1 religiously so as to get relieved from the pain and dental problem but she did not feel any relief. When the complainant felt swelling and giddiness, her husband took her to Mani Majra Civil Hospital who after prescribing some medicine and finding something wrong with the procedure done by OP-1, referred her to Sector 32 Hospital, Chandigarh. The complainant was advised x-ray by the doctors of Sector-16/Sector-32, Chandigarh Hospitals and upon scrutiny, the doctors of Sector-32, Chandigarh found that a broken pin was existing in her jaws/gums which was in fact inserted by OP-1 during treatment while doing a procedure of root canal etc. Not only the broken pin and broken tooth were found in the gums of the complainant, it spread infection and the same also caused a lot of pain and suffering to her. On detection of the mistakes of OP-1, the doctors of Sector-32 Hospital called the complainant on 23.9.2013 for performing the operation and after performing the operation, broken pin and a broken tooth were taken out from the gums which were left by OP-1 during wrong treatment. Stitches were applied and the complainant had to take medicines as well. It has been alleged that on account of negligent treatment by OP-1, some more teeth of the complainant were decayed and lost and she had to suffer physically, mentally, occupationally and financially. It has been contended that the OPs did not show any sympathy to her and despite request failed to refund the wrongly and incorrectly charged fee and expenses. The complainant also submitted complaints to the higher authorities. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounts to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. In their reply, OPs have averred that the root canal treatment (RCTs) w.r.t teeth number 7 of the complainant was started on 23.7.2013. It has been further averred that the OP has never done extraction of any tooth of the complainant at any stage. It has been pleaded that the treatment was explained to the patient (complainant) in detail and whatever was best for the patient was advised and done. It has been averred that on the very first day i.e. 23.7.2013 the patient reported with severe pain and was quite relieved of pain and suffering after treatment and hence kept reporting for treatment for further relief. Number of visits were required because three teeth were being root canal treated and root canal treatment requires multiple revisits and during such treatment the complainant was advised to come back on 15.10.2013 for completion of treatment. But, on 20.9.2013, the complainant approached the OP with the complaint of pain in the area undergoing treatment and at that time Dr. Supriya attended her as Dr. Rashmi was out of station since 19.9.2013. After proper check up and x-rays, tablet Moxikind CV was prescribed for
3 days and pain killers were given by Dr. Supriya for relief from pain at around 6:30 p.m. but instead of taking the said medicines the complainant went to Civil Hospital, Manimajra at around 6:45 p.m. where she was given some pain killers. Still not satisfied, the complainant thereafter went to GMCH 32, Chandigarh on 21.9.2013 at 9:41 AM at her own. Thereafter, the complainant under misconception and malafide intentions assuming the unconfirmed and questionable opinion of attending doctor at GMCH 32, Chandigarh as medical negligence on the part of the OP, approached the OP clinic at around 11:30 a.m. alongwith 5 attendants and started creating a scene/nuisance inside the clinic in the presence of attending doctor, Dr. Supriya and patients. It has been alleged that the complainant and her associates threatened Dr. Supriya to be ready to face dire consequences and also threatened to damage the OPs clinic and Dr. Supriya feeling danger to her life, liberty and property of the clinic immediately made a call to PCR through her mobile. It has been contended that the prima facie opinion expressed by the attending doctor of GMCH Sector 32 on 21.9.2013 vide Annexure C-7 with regard to broken file was later on explained by the said very doctor after getting x-rays of affected area that the broken pin being talked of was actually Gutta Percha (G.P) which is used by dentists as filing material in RCTs. It has been averred that the complainant has been claiming that the pin was removed from gums/jaws by the doctors at GMCH by performing operation on 23.9.2013 but the pin has not been attached as evidence. It has been averred that the doctor (Dr. Rashmi) could not meet the patient as she was out of station from 19.9.2013 to 23.9.2013. It has been contended that a report was also submitted by the committee of Dr. Gurvanit Lehl (Prof. & Head), Dr. Manjit Talwar (Associate Prof.) and Dr. Sapna Singla (Assistant Prof.) of Dental Department, GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh to the Medical Superintendent (GMCH Sec.32) on 7.10.2013 clearly stating that no wrong treatment had been done by Dr. Rashmi Gupta. It has been pleaded that the complainant had approached the Honble Prime Minister of India and through him Advisor to Administrator U.T., Chandigarh with her complaint. The complaint was forwarded to the Director Health and Family Welfare Chandigarh who directed Registrar, Dental Council of India, Sector 45-B, Chandigarh to look into her complaint. The complainant also approached Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh and Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh for inquiry into the complaint. The complainant was given full opportunity to present her case and she presented all documents and x-rays etc. before these officials. But, in all the inquiries, the complaints submitted by the complainant were found baseless and were found to have been submitted under malafide intentions. Pleading that there is no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In her replication, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated her own. It has been pleaded that reliance by the OPs upon the expert report of the Board is incorrect whereas it has clearly been established that the doctors of other hospitals where the complainant was treated, found the existence of broken pin in the gums of the patient which was removed through operation by doctors of GMCH as per records. The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. We have appraised the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant and authorized agent for the OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant has urged that Dr. Rashmi Gupta, OP-1 is admittedly practising as a Dentist under the name and style of Rashmi Dental Clinic (OP-2). He has contended that on 23.7.2013, the complainant went to the clinic of Dr. Rashmi Gupta for the check up, advice and treatment of dental problem. Dr. Rashmi Gupta after check up advised that a number of teeth shall have to undergo RCT treatment and one of them shall be uprooted and she did some procedure and took out one tooth. He has further argued that the complainant visited the clinic of Dr. Rashmi Gupta w.e.f. 23.7.2013 to 20.9.2013 on different dates and made payment of the charges quoted by the doctor but she did not get any relief from the pain and the problem was further aggravated. The husband of the complainant took her to Manimajra Civil Hospital who after prescribing some medicine referred her to Sector 32, Hospital, Chandigarh. However, no relief whatsoever was felt. Thereafter on 20.9.2013, the complainant visited the clinic of the OP and she was again prescribed some medicines against payment but no relief was felt by her. Then she was advised x-ray by the doctors of Sector 16/Sector 32, Chandigarh which was got done and upon scrutiny of the same by the doctors of GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh, it was found that a remnant/foreign body was existing in her jaws/gums which was in fact inserted by Dr. Rashmi Gupta during the procedure of root canal etc. The said broken pin and broken tooth were found in the gums of the complainant which spread infection and the same also caused a lot of pain and suffering to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has urged that the x-ray films are at Annexure C-1 and C-2 and the uprooted teeth are at Annexure C-3 and the treatment papers of the OPs are at Annexure C-4. He has further argued that the doctors of Sector 32, Hospital called the complainant on 23.3.2013 for performing the operation. He has submitted that on 21.9.2013 the complainant again visited the clinic of OP-1 for consultation but OP-1 did not meet her and she was pushed out from the Hospital by the staff of the OPs and she had to call the police. The media also came into being on receipt of the information of the misdeed of OP-1 but no FIR was registered. The doctors of Sector 16, Chandigarh, Hospital branch at Mani Majra referred the complainant to Sector 32, Chandigarh. On 23.9.2013 after performing the operation, the broken pin and a broken tooth were taken out from the gums which were left by OP-1 during wrong treatment. The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that on account of the negligent treatment by OP-1 some more teeth of the complainant were decayed and due to the incorrect treatment in a negligent manner by OP-1, the complainant had to suffer physically, mentally, occupationally and financially. The copies of the treatment card of Sector 16, Chandigarh and Sector 32, Chandigarh are annexed as Annexure C-5 to C-7 and the copy of the complaint to the police is at Annexure C-8. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the complainant and her husband also made complaints to the higher authorities and the copies of the representations and follow up letters are Annexure C-11 to C-14 and postal receipts are at Annexure C-15 (colly.). The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that Dr. Rashmi Gupta being a doctor has attracted sympathy and favour from her fraternity doctors in order to defeat the just and reasonable complaint of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has fervently pleaded that the complainant had to suffer on account of the wrong treatment by Dr. Rashmi Gupta and she had to take loan for the monetary loss caused and her children and husband also suffered on account of her prolonged illness. On the other hand, the authorized agent of the OPs has submitted that Dr. Rashmi Gupta is a well qualified dentist and registered with Haryana Dental Council and she never gave any wrong treatment to the complainant. He has argued that root canal treatment with reference to tooth No. 7 was started on 23.7.2013 and no tooth was extracted by OP-1. He has also argued that the prescription slip Annexure C-4 issued by the OP, prescription slip Annexure C-5 issued by Manimajra Civil Hospital as well as the Annexure C-7 issued by GMCH-32, Chandigarh nowhere show extraction of any tooth. He has further argued that a number of visits were required because
3 teeth of the complainant were being root canal treated and root canal treatment requires multiple visits. The complainant was advised to come back on 15.10.2013 for completion of treatment but on 20.9.2013 she approached the OP with complaint of pain in the area undergoing treatment. At that time Dr. Supriya attended her as Dr. Rashmi Gupta was out of station since 19.9.2013 and after proper check-up and x-rays tablet Moxikind CV was prescribed for 3 days and pain killers were given by Dr. Supriya for relief at around 6:30 p.m. but instead of taking the said medicines the complainant went to Civil Hospital, Manimajra at around 6:45 p.m. where she was given some pain killers but still not satisfied with the treatment, she went to GMCH 32, Chandigarh on 21.9.2013 at 9:41 a.m. (Annexure C-7) on her own. At GMCH 32, Chandigarh, she was prescribed same medicines which were prescribed by the OP on 20.9.2013 (Annexure C-4). He has further argued that the complainant under misconception and malafide intention assuming the unconfirmed and questionable opinion of attending doctor at GMCH 32, Chandigarh as medical negligence on the part of Dr. Rashmi Gupta approached her clinic at around 11:30 a.m. alongwith
5 attendants and started creating a scene/nuisance inside the clinic. Dr. Supriya was threatened by the complainant and her associates and Dr. Supriya feeling danger to her life made a call to the PCR through her mobile No.9779743149 (Annexure R-1). After the police came, the complainant and her associates left the spot. However, after a few hours on the same day, the complainant under malafide intention made telephonic call to PCR while standing near the OP clinic and the police officials took her to Civil Hospital Manimajra and the emergency doctor found that there was no bleeding or swelling in the area under treatment (Annexure C-5). He has further argued that since the complainant had earlier approached GMCH 32, Chandigarh on the same day in the morning, therefore, the emergency doctor of Civil Hospital, Manimajra referred her to GMCH 32, Chandigarh for treatment and management. He has further contended that the prima facie opinion expressed by the attending doctor of GMCH 32 on 21.9.2013 vide Annexure C-7 with regard to broken file?? (questionable) was later on explained by the said very doctor after getting x-rays of the affected area that the broken pin being talked of was actually Gutta Percha (G.P) which is used by dentists as filling material in RCTs. He has further argued that the complainant has not produced the pin alleged to have been removed by the doctor of GMCH on 23.9.2013 as evidence before this Forum. He has further argued that the complainant lodged a wrong complaint with the police and the police did not register any FIR. However, the case was referred to GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh for expert opinion by Shri Mohinder Singh, SI. A panel of three experts namely Dr. Gurvanit Lehl (Prof. & Head), Dr. Manjit Talwar (Associate Prof.) and Dr. Sapna Singla (Assistant Prof.) of Dental Department, GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh was constituted and the committee looked into the complete case minutely and after going through the records submitted a report (Annexure R-2) to the Medical Superintendent on 7.10.2013 clearly stating that no wrong treatment was done by Dr. Rashmi Gupta. He has argued that when the patient came to know the outcome of the report, sensing that Dr. Rashmi Gupta was not yielding to her repeated threats for extortion, she sent another set of letters to the Honble Prime Minster of India, Administrator Chandigarh, Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh etc. and enquiry was conducted by Chandigarh Police but the complaint of the patient was found to be false and was rejected and filed (Annexure R-3). The Registrar, (Dr. Bindu Dhillon), Dental Council of India, Chandigarh also conducted another enquiry on the letter of Honble Prime Minister and she also observed (Annexure R-4) that proper treatment was given to the complainant on every visit and the complainant was never satisfied with the treatment of any doctor anywhere. He has strenuously argued that the sole aim of the complainant is to extract money from the OPs. He has also contended that the bills of taxi etc. furnished by the complainant are all false and fabricated. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the authorized agent of the OPs, we feel that the arguments of the authorised agent of the OPs have considerable force and the same must prevail. In the case of Tilat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Anr.-2013(2) , the Hon'ble National Commission observed that the question Andh LD (Cons. Reports) 12 as to what amounts to medical negligence on the part of the medical professional has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court and foreign courts in a number of its decisions. The Honble National Commission found that the Honble Supreme Court on consideration of the foreign and Indian decisions in the case of Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital culled out the following principles :- & Medical Research Centre & Ors.-2010 (3) SCC 480 Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, we have to reach at a definite conclusion whether Dr. Rashmi Gupta is guilty of medical negligence and/or deficiency in service on her part while treating the complainant in connection with the root canal treatment of her three teeth as detailed in the prescription slip Annexure C-4. As far as the question of hiring of the services of Dr. Rashmi Gupta by the complainant for consideration is concerned, it is not disputed by the OPs that the treatment was conducted after receiving the necessary payment. So far as the question of professional proficiency of Dr. Rashmi Gupta is concerned, the report dated 11.12.2013 (Annexure R-4) by Dr. Bindu Dhillon, Registrar, Dental Council, Chandigarh reveals that Dr. Rashmi Gupta, dentist is a qualified dentist and is registered with Haryana State Dental Council. At the outset, we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that OP-1 did some procedure and took out one tooth of the complainant, is not corroborated either by the medical record Annexure C-4 of Rashmi Dental Clinic or by the out patient cards of Civil Hospital Manimajra (Annexure C-5) or out patient cards at Annexure C-7 of Government Medical College Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh. Hence, the only inference that can be raised is that the complainant took treatment of root canal only in respect of her three teeth from Rashmi Dental Clinic. In regard to the various visits by the complainant in connection with root canal treatment of three teeth, the authorized agent of the OPs has produced a literature during arguments which shows that a root canal treatment (Root canal therapy, endodontic therapy) is a dental treatment for saving the tooth from being extracted. The tooth is decayed deep into a pulp chamber causing the nerve to expose to an oral cavity and infection process begins inside the root canals and drains at root apex. The said literature also shows that Paresthesia is the side effect of root canal therapy and it relates to root canal treatment (burning, aching, tingling, numbness and itching on the face) caused by nerve injury. The most common nerve affected by root canal treatment is inferior alveolar nerve. The inferior alveolar nerve runs inside mandibular canal in the lower jaw, close to the root tips of lower teeth; allowing mechanical or pathological origin to affect the nerve. The said literature further shows as to what are the causes of paresthesia related to root canal therapy and it shows that excessive preparation of the root beyond the apex, extreme pressure during irrigation and extrusion of root canal filling (gutta-percha) and root canal sealer is also one of the causes of paresthesia. The said literature also shows that irritation caused by overflow of root canal filler to outside of the root canal, incomplete root canal treatment, cracked tooth due to large opening inside the canal weaken the structure of the tooth and the filling over the post being too high are some other causes of the pain. This literature shows that gutta percha is a filling material in the root canal. In the instant case, it is quite true that the complainant had a pain in her teeth due to which she visited the Rashmi Dental Clinic on 20.9.2013 (page 20 of the paper book of the complainant) and as per case of the OPs Dr. Supriya prescribed a pain killer Mox Kind CV for 3 days. But, it is evident that the complainant was not satisfied with the prescription by Dr. Supriya of Rashmi Dental Clinic and she went to CHC Manimajra (Annexure C-5) where she made a complaint of toothache and two medicines were prescribed to her. On 21.9.2013, the complainant again visited Manimajra Civil Hospital (page 22 of the paper book) with complaint of severe toothache since three days. The doctor on duty did not find any bleeding or swelling and he prescribed vovran injection and tablet vovran and referred her to GMCH-32 for further treatment and management. The copy of the emergency health card Annexure C-7 shows that the complainant visited Govt. Medical College Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and one Dr. Monika made an observation of broken file?? in the root of 6 . She also prescribed same medicine Tablet Moxikind for pain which was also prescribed by Dr. Supriya (of Rashmi Dental Clinic) on 20.9.2013 (at page
20 of paper book). It was on account of the observation of broken file?? that the complainant and her associates went to the clinic of Dr. Rashmi Gupta and created a scene. In this connection, the newspaper clipping Annexure C10(A) is also relevant. However, the report of Inspector Balbir Singh at Annexure R-1 shows that on 21.9.2013 at 1157 hours information was received in Police Control Room from mobile No.9779743149 (which is stated to be of Dr. Supriya of Rashmi Dental Clinic) that a quarrel had taken place. The PCR reached there and found a quarrel between Dr. Supriya SCO No.264 Motor Market Mani Majra with Nirmala Devi but none was injured. The spot was handed over to SI Mohinder Singh. On the same day, at about 1336 hours again information was received in Police Control Room from mobile No.9988638598 that a quarrel had taken place at same very place. It was reported that Nirmala Devi had taken treatment from SCO No.264, Motor Market Mani Majra but she was not satisfied with the treatment and she had come again with press reporter. The spot was handed over to SI Mohinder Singh. The documents at Annexure R-3 show that Nirmala Devi filed a complaint with the police against Rashmi Dental Clinic regarding harassment and threatening. The documents at Annexure R-2 show that on the request of Sh. Mohinder Singh, SI Police Station Manimajra a committee consisting of Dr. Gurvanit Lehl (Prof. & Head), Dr. Manjit Talwar (Associate Prof.) and Dr. Sapna Singla (Assistant Prof.) of Dental Department, GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh was constituted to opine whether Mrs. Nirmala Devi has been rightly or wrongly treated by Dr. Rashmi Gupta. The report of the committee reads as under :- .. After the examination of the records the committee observed that the patient, Mrs. Nirmala Devi was under treatment of Dr. Rashmi Gupta where she under went the dental treatment. Subsequent to that the patient visited Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh and was referred from there to Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh for dental opinion and further treatment and management. When the patient visited GMCH-32 dental department she was examined by Dr. Monika Kamboj who advised a x-ray. The x-ray report showed root stump of ____5 and radio opacity in root of
6 Dr. Monika Kamboj has mentioned broken file (questionable) with reference to . Questionable means either the portion of gutta-percha or a broken instrument and it is not confirmatory. She advised extraction of root of
5 and extraction of tooth 6 . The patient underwent the extraction of 6,5 at GMCH-32, dental department. On the basis of the above records the committee has come to the conclusion that there does not appear to be any wrong treatment done by Dr. Rashmi Gupta. As far as the complaint made to the police is concerned, the report of SI Juldan Singh at Annexure R-3 shows that the complaint given by Mrs. Nirmala Devi against Dr. Rashmi Gupta was found baseless and the same was recommended to be filed. The next page of the report shows that Inspector/SHO of police station Mani Majra also found that the complaint given by Mrs. Nirmala Devi against Dr. Rashmi Gupta was baseless. The DSP and SSP, Chandigarh also found that the allegations against Dr. Rashmi Gupta were found false and baseless and the complaint made by the complainant Mrs. Nirmala Devi was ordered to be filed. -10- The main grievance of the complainant is that the doctor at GMCH-23, Chandigarh found broken pin and broken tooth in her gums and on 23.9.2013 after performing the operation broken pin and a broken teeth were taken out from the gums which were left by OP-1 during wrong treatment. As per card copy of which is Annexure C-7 of GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh, extraction of two teeth 6, 5 was done under local anaesthesia on 23.9.2013. Further, the out patient card of GMCH-32, Chandigarh dated 30.9.2013 (at page 30-31 of the paper book) shows that it was found that based on the history and x-rays it appeared that GP (gutta percha) was there in the 6 tooth that had been extracted alongwith 5 tooth. After discussion of case, these two teeth had been extracted and healing appeared fine after 7 days. It is significant to note that though the uprooted teeth have been produced at Annexure C-3 by the complainant, but no remnant of alleged broken file/pin has been produced by the complainant. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the doctor had thrown that broken pin in the dustbin. However, we are not impressed with this contention. When there was a specific mention about broken file?? in Annexure C-7, the doctor could not have thrown it in the dustbin. There is also no such affidavit of the doctor of GMCH-32, Chandigarh that a broken file/pin was found in the tooth at the time of extraction and the same was thrown in the dustbin. Taking into consideration the observations in the out door slip dated 30.9.2013 (at page 30-31 of the paper book) and the report Annexure R-2 of the committee of three doctors, there does not appear to be any wrong treatment done by Dr. Rashmi Gupta and in fact it was not any broken pin or file but the remnant of gutta percha (filling material) which was found in the extracted tooth. Since the committee of doctors was got appointed by the police on a report made by the complainant, we feel that the report of the committee cannot be thrown away on the ground that it is not supported by any affidavit of the three doctors. As far as the complaint made by the complainant to Honble Prime Ministers office is concerned, it is worth noting that a copy of the complaint was sent to the Advisor to Administrator, UT, Chandigarh vide Annexure C-11. The Director, Health and Family Welfare, Chandigarh Administration sent a letter to the Medical Officer cum Registrar Dental Council, Sector 45, Chandigarh to enquire into the complaint against Rashmi Dental Clinic. The copy of report Annexure R-4 made by Dr. Bindu Dhillon, Registrar, Dental Council, Chandigarh shows that as per the record, the patient was given proper treatment at every visit but the patient was not satisfied with the treatment. Then the patient went to Sector 32 Government Medical College & Hospital and got her teeth in question extracted three months back and the healing has already occurred. There also, the patient was not happy. Then she visited the Manimajra Civil Hospital. There also the patient was not satisfied. Later on she went to Medico Dental Clinic in Manimajra and got her other infected teeth extracted. Thus, the report of the Registrar, Dental Council also corroborates the case of the OPs that the treatment of the teeth of the complainant was in accordance with accepted medical practice. In Chand Kishore Rajput Vs. Sood Stone Clinic (Hospital) & Anr.-I (2015) CPJ 101 it was held as under :- (NC)
8. Just because a person suffers a bad outcome from medical treatment, does not mean that they have an automatic right to sue for compensation. A medical error is -11- Sd/- Sd/- 10/03/2015 [Surjeet Kaur] [P. L. Ahuja] hg Member President only considered negligent if the healthcare practitioner has failed to take
reasonable care. The law does not require a doctor to act perfectly, but rather, the law requires that a doctor take reasonable care in treating and advising a patient. This is not a high or impossible standard to achieve. Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management Committee, [1957] ruled that It is expected of a professional person that he should show a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill; it is not required that he should use the highest degree of skill.
As observed in negligence is an essential Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra Hospital (supra) ingredient of the offence and it must be culpable or gross and not merely based upon an error of judgment. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. The medical practitioner is liable only where his conduct falls below that of standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. In the instant case, there is not an iota of evidence which could show that Dr. Rashmi Gupta did not perform her duties with reasonable skill and competence. On the other hand, there is expert evidence on the file proving that there does not appear to be any wrong treatment done by Dr. Rashmi Gupta. In view of the law laid down in it is our Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra Hospital (supra) bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners. For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any medical negligence and/or deficiency in service on the part of Dr. Rashmi Gupta or staff of Rashmi Dental Clinic. The complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. -12-