State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Rasik M.Shah vs Dr.A.R.Kalra on 21 October, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO.489 OF 2003 Date of filing : 04/04/2003 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.871/1998 Date of order: 21/10/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, MUMBAI SUBURBAN Dr.Rasik M.Shah 41, Sahyadri Aarey Road Goregaon (East) Mumbai 400 063 ..Appellant/org.complainant v/s. Dr.A.R.Kalra Pooja Dental Speciality Clinic M.G.Road, Goregaon (W) Mumbai 400 062 ..Respondent/org.O.P. Corum: Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt.S.P.Lale, Honble Member Present : None for the appellant.
Respondent in person.
O R D E R Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by unsuccessful complainant, who lost his complaint in the Forum below.
Case of the complainant in the Forum below was that he is doctor by profession and his wife Niru Shah had a toothache and shaky right last lower molar tooth. He gave her medicine on 20/11/1997. He consulted Dr.S.P.Jain on 21/11/1997 as swelling was observed. The drugs advised by Dr.Jain were given to the patient, but still she was unable to swallow food and was on liquid. He therefore took his wife to Dr.A.R.Kalra for treatment. One lady doctor examined his wife and advised extraction of molar tooth. A bulging inside in vicinity of tooth was found which was suggestive of abscess. He therefore suggested that incision drainage was necessary. However doctor informed the complainant that there would be no problem as the patient was on antibiotics and extraction would lead to drainage. She extracted tooth of his wife, changed antibiotics and certain other drugs were prescribed. Complainant visited the clinic on 25/11/1997. Patient was examined and was directed to continue the same treatment. Complainant again went to the same clinic. As the patient was not relieved of the pain and swelling was increasing, Maxillo-fascial surgeon examined the patient and advised to continue the treatment as it was cellutitis. Complainant and patient were informed that swelling would gradually disappear. The complainants suggestion to adopt aspiration method was not followed by O.P. Complainant called another doctor, who was Maxillo-fascial surgeon on 27/11/1997. Same treatment was advised. Complainant again visited clinic of O.P. on 28/11/1997. Lady doctor told that incision would help the patient, but Dr.Kalra told the patient that patient should come at night as surgeon visits the clinic at night hours. Therefore dissatisfied with the O.P. he took patient to another surgeon. Surgeon followed aspiration method and carried out drainage. Surgeon blamed O.P. for negligence for not following simple procedure for relief from pains. Thereafter complainant visited clinic of O.P. O.P denied that there was any fault or negligence on his part. Complainant sent registered notice to the O.P. on 13/4/1998 alleging negligence and deficiency in service on his part and asked the O.P. to give reimbursement of the bills for which he had approached another surgeon, that the surgeon to whom he had taken his wife for further treatment. After receipt of notice O.P. allegedly apologised and showed willingness to refund the money. But monies were not sent. Hence he filed consumer complaint in the Forum below.
O.P. filed written statement on 20/4/1999 and resisted the complaint. O.P. pleaded that there was no negligence on his part in treating wife of the complainant. O.P. pleaded that line of treatment adopted was proper and he had given proper advice. He admits that he had informed the patient and the complainant that swelling would subside within short period of time and there was no necessity to adopt aspiration method. He further pleaded that on 28/11/1998 he had called oral surgeon for incision and drainage but complainant did not attend fixed evening appointment and therefore that was not done, so there was default committed by complainant. O.P. pleaded that he and his juniors adopted procedure prescribed in medical books/journals. He therefore justified that he had given proper treatment to the complainants wife when she was visiting to their hospital.
Complainant filed rejoinder and disputed averments made by O.P. in the written statement.
On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, Ld. District Consumer Forum was of the view that there was no medical negligence of any kind on the part of the O.P. O.P. treated complainants wife properly by adopting method prescribed in the medical journals and text books. Forum below relied upon some extracts reproduced from the medical books and journals and held that Drainage by extraction of offending tooth is described as accepted and general successful procedure in the case of the primary dentition. Fact the O.P. did not follow aspiration method as suggested by complainant would not make any difference. When the surgeon or treating doctor follows one of the two methods prescribed, he could not be blamed of medical negligence simply because according to complainants desire doctor should have followed method of aspiration in place of extraction of offending tooth. Therefore Forum below was pleased to dismiss the complaint.
Aggrieved by this dismissal, this appeal came to be filed by appellant. Today when appeal was called out, appellant was absent. We heard Dr.Kalra in person/respondent herein. We are finding that the order passed by the Forum below is just and proper and cannot be interfered with. There was no medical negligence on the part of the O.P. doctor. Two methods are available to relieve the pain of the offending tooth, one was extraction of offending tooth followed by O.P. and other was aspiration method. So extraction of offending tooth O.P. had suggested to the complainant, whereas complainant suggested that aspiration method should be followed. It is the choice of treating surgeon which method or procedure should be followed in a given circumstance. Simply because complainants suggestion was turned down that does not mean that O.P. is guilty of medical negligence. In our view Bolams test is applicable to the instant case and the respondent doctor had taken all the due precaution and care expected of him as a reasonable Dentist having good experience in a field. Appellant failed to establish how respondent is guilty of medical negligence. Simply because his suggestion was turned down that is no ground to allege deficiency in service on the part of respondent doctor. In the result, we find no substance in the appeal preferred by the original complainant. Hence we pass following order:-
ORDER
1.
Appeal stands dismissed.
2. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
3. Inform the parties accordingly.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S.P.Lale) (P.N.Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member Ms.