ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 196 of 2022. Date of Institution : 24.03.2022. Date of Decision : 15.10.2025. Mukesh Kumar son of Shri Nand Lal, resident of Ward no.3, Near Navjoti School, Ellenabad, Tehsil Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
1
Versus.
1. Dr. Ved Jyoti Gupta, MDS.
2. Dr. Santosh Gupta, BDS, Gupta Advance Dental Clinic, Thana Road Near Devi Lal Chowk Ellenabad, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vikas Kharia, Advocate for complainant. Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that ops no.1 and 2 are dentists and practicing as such in their own clinic namely Gupta Advance Dental Clinic at Ellenabad. The complainant went to the OPD of clinic of ops on 14.11.2021 due to minor pain between his first and second molar. The ops were in OPD and firstly the op no.1 attended him and after some checkup he told him that there was no more room between first and second molar of the complainant and he recommended for
2
removal of second molar as precaution because less space in two molars could cause problem in next time and he recommended for removal of second molar from the jaw of complainant. It is further averred that op no.2 who was sitting beside the op no.1 told the complainant that it is a normal procedure of their profession and she also told the complainant that he had to face little bleeding in that operation and after one hour the complainant would be able to go back to his normal activities. The op no.1 told the complainant that total charge would be of Rs.3000/- and complainant paid total amount of Rs.3000/- to op no.1 i.e. Rs.1500/- in cash and Rs.1500/- through online. It is further averred that op no.1 performed the operation and extracted third molar of complainant, when he was extracting the molar the complainant tried to tell the doctor about the molar that had needed to extract but the elevator of the doctor was in the mouth of the complainant, so he was unable to tell anything and thus op no.1 doctor extracted the third molar of the complainant instead of second molar. Blood clot was formed in the socket, complainant's mouth filled with blood, he was in pain, there was swelling in left side of his mouth and swelling was increased because doctor pulled out health, properly enlighten and fully impacted molar. The complainant told the ops doctors that they had extracted his another molar instead of his second molar and op no.1 replied that it was normal part of their routine practice and pain and swelling of the complainant would be reduced in sometime. He gave some tablets to the complainant. It is further averred that about one hour of taking the tablets, the complainant told the op doctor that swelling was increasing and there was no relief in his pain upon which doctor gave him some tablets and suggested to go to home and wait for sometime and told him that his pain and swelling would be reduced after one or two hours. That complainant came to his house after taking medicine but when even after two hours pain was not reduced, then complainant contacted op on mobile and at that time he was not in position to talk with op then his friend Vikram talked with op and told that pain has not been reduced and swelling has also been increased but ops did not give satisfactory reply. Ultimately the complainant was suffering serious problem in breathing and then he again contacted op through his friend on mobile with request to check him but the op refused and stated that it was time for his sleep. It is further averred that on 15.11.2021 complainant alongwith Vikram reached in the hospital
3
and ops checked complainant and received Rs.500/- from him for OPD slip and prescribed some medicine for relief but inspite of it, he suffered serious pain and again made a complaint to ops and then they referred him to Oral Surgeon but complainant requested that he is to force to spend huge amount with Oral Surgeon and requested them to check him properly but ops misbehaved with him and openly threatened to get out from clinic and even pushed him and his friend. It is further averred that finding no other alternative, his friends Vikram and Maya brought him to Dr. Pankaj Gupta at Sirsa who after his thorough checkup told that his condition is very critical and deteriorated and due to this reason, complainant was advised to go to Jindal Hospital, Hisar for further treatment because his condition was critical due to treatment by a doctor in negligence manner who had no experience for conducting such type of operations and he had deteriorated his condition by conducting operation in negligent manner. He also stated that he being a doctor would not help the complainant for any legal purpose and prescribed some medicines for relief. That thereafter he was taken to Jindal Hospital, Hisar where Dr. Madhuri Mehta checked up the complainant and submitted her report which is as under:-
"There is hypodence peripherally enhancing collection measuring 65 (AP) x 32 (TR) x 13.3 (CC) mm seen involving left submandibular space. Medially this collection is extending into left submandibular space. Medially this collection is extending into left parapharyngeal space through 20.0 mm wide and 25.0 mm long tract. In left parapharyngeal space collection measures 63 (CC) x 34 (AP) x 26 (TR) mm. Collection is left parapharyngeal space bulging medially into the oropharyngeal airway causing significant luminial compromise. Diffuse subscutaneous fat stranding noted in the left side of neck. Left submandibular gland appear bulky."
3. It is further averred that complainant remained admitted in Jindal Hospital, Hisar for his treatment for five days and his operation was conducted by the doctors and after discharge, the complainant is taking medicines as per advice of the doctors and even he is visiting said hospital for check up from time to time
4
and on his treatment he has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- but in spite of it, the complainant is not feeling completely well due to the entire negligence of ops. The complainant approached and requested the ops to admit his claim and to pay compensation but all in vain. The complainant also served legal notice dated 19.01.2022 upon ops but to no effect and ops have finally refused to admit his claim and as such ops have committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice and have caused unnecessary harassment to him. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to refund the amount of Rs.3500/- already paid by complainant to the ops alongwith interest, to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.
4. On notice, ops appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections that they are qualified and experienced dental surgeons and are duly registered with the State Medical Council and have a clean and spotless professional career and have been keeping themselves updated in their professional skills and knowledge and there is nothing on record to prove any medical negligence on the part of ops no.1 and 2, moreover op no.2 never treated the complainant and has been wrongly and maliciously implicated in the present complaint and that present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and frivolous which is unsustainable in the eyes of law and that no specific, scientific and justified allegations in regard to negligence or deficiency in providing services have been made by complainant against ops no.1 and 2 and the complainant has totally failed to explain as to how the op no.1 and op no.2 were negligent and that present complaint is not supported by any expert medical witness on behalf of complainant. Other preliminary objections regarding cause of action and concealment of facts are also taken. On merits, it is submitted that Mukesh Kumar visited the op no.1 in emergency situation with severe pain and profuse swelling on left side of face with history of already taking amoxy clove 625 mg and analgesic tablets since last 3-4 days but there was no relief. He was unable to eat anything since last 2-3 days due to pain while mastication. On intra-oral examination, it was found that there was a soft tissue impacted at third molar with peri-coronal infection. Pus was oozing out around the tooth. Facial space infection on day first was mentioned in prescription
5
slip. It is further submitted that keeping in view the clinical findings and the emergency situation, pus drainage was indicated. Third molar tooth was extracted and pus was drained out, the space infections required to be drained at the earliest as floor of tongue was raised due to submandibular space infection. Any delay in treatment could lead to bilateral space infection (Ludwig angina). It is further submitted that keeping in view all these emergency situations in mind, the op acted diligently and as per accepted standards of practice. It is further submitted that op advised the patient to consult oral surgeon for external oral incisions. Next day morning, the patient again came to the op alongwith an attendant and insisted to do the procedure. The op acted in the best interest of the patient and aspirated 25 ml of pus in front of his attendant. After that, op no.1 again referred the patient to Oral Surgeon for external oral incisions for complete drainage of the remaining pus. The op no.1 provided the treatment diligently, prudently with reasonable care and skill and as per standards of practice. The tooth extraction was done as an emergency measure so that pus can be drained out. No assurance/ guarantee of any sort was given by ops as the same is neither possible medically nor expected as per law. It is further submitted that op no.1 extracted the tooth correctly as per the clinical findings and complainant has maliciously tried to mislead this Commission that the wrong tooth was extracted. The complainant earlier alleged in the complaint that he had minor problem in the tooth and that the tooth was removed by the doctor as precautionary step due to less space between two molars, how could he know during tooth extraction that a wrong tooth was being extracted. It cannot be believed that because of elevator in his mouth he could not convey his message and allowed the doctor to remove the wrong tooth. The complainant be subjected to explain that why he did not convey through signs that he wanted to convey some message. The complainant has made self contradictory allegations in his complaint as on one hand complainant alleged that he visited the ops with minor pain between 1stand 2nd molar and on other hand, he alleged that his condition was very critical. If he had minor pain in the molars then how is it possible that after tooth extraction his condition became critical. The complainant has not submitted any medical record or written expert opinion of treating doctor to support his false allegation of negligence by the ops and his condition was never of a minor pain in molars. Remaining
6
contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Maya daughter of Shri Hans Raj Ex. CW2/A and documents Ex. CW1/A to Ex.CW1/P and photographs Ex.CW1/R to Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.CW1/AA to Ex.CW1/AC.
6. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Dr. Ved Jyoti Gupta as Ex.RW1, affidavit of Dr. Santosh Gupta as Ex.RW2.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
8. The complainant has alleged that op no.1 doctor wrongly extracted the third molar of the complainant instead of second molar. However, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that doctor wrongly and negligently extracted the third molar instead of second molar. The complainant has not placed on file any expert opinion about medical negligence of op no.1 doctor or any other opinion of any expert doctor that although second molar of complainant was to be removed/ extracted but op no.1 doctor wrongly extracted third molar of the complainant. The prescription slip of ops doctors dated 14.11.2021 Ex.CW1/B when the complainant for the first time visited them clearly reveals that complainant after the procedure of extraction of tooth was referred to Oral Surgeon on 15.11.2021. The ops have taken a specific plea that patient visited the op no.1 in emergency situation with severe pain and profuse swelling on left side of face with history of already taking Amoxy Clove 625 mg and analgesic tablets since last 3-4 days due to pain while mastication. On intra- oral examination, it was found that there was a soft tissue impacted at third molar with peri coronal infection and pus was oozing out around the tooth. The ops have also asserted that op no.1 doctor treated the complainant diligently with reasonable care and skill and as per standard of practice and as per medical literature regarding surgical drainage and incision. Although complainant has placed on file prescription slip of Dental Care Centre Sirsa as Ex.CW1/C and treatment record of Jindal Hospital, Hisar to prove the fact that after medical negligence he had to visit other
7
hospitals for further treatment but there is nothing on file to prove the fact that further treatment of complainant was due to any medical negligence of op no.1 doctor rather it is proved on record that op no.1 doctor himself referred him to Oral Surgeon as his condition was critical due to pus and he was already having pus and swelling even before visiting to ops. The further treatment record of complainant does not indicate any medical negligence of op no.1 rather it is proved on record that op no.1 doctor treated the complainant as per standard practice and as per medical literate regarding surgical drainage and incision and further treatment of complainant was as per requirement as per condition of the complainant. The report relied upon by complainant as Ex.CW1/D is not report of Dr. Madhuri Mehta doctor of Jindal Hospital, Hisar rather it is a test report of CECT neck. Even from the discharge summary of Jindal Hospital, Hisar Ex.CW1/L it is not porved on record that there was any medical negligence of the op no.1 doctor rather his further treatment was as per condition of the patient which was earlier to the visit of complainant to the ops. So the complainant has failed to prove his case through any cogent, convincing and expert evidence.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Announced. Member President
Dt. 15.10.2025. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
..................J
PADAM SINGH THAKUR
8
PRESIDENT
..................J
SUKHDEEP KAUR
MEMBER
9