IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision petition no. 3136 of 2013 has been filed against the judgment dated 12.06.2013 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal no. 153 of 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner, aged about 69 years, visited the dental clinic viz. Smile and Profile at Kolkata with his dental problem in lower 7th molar tooth. The attending doctor of the respondent/ opposite party on examination opined that root canal therapy treatment was necessary to protect the tooth. On 19.10.10 Dr. Dadhya started RCT treatment of the lower 7th molar tooth of the petitioner and the petitioner was told that crowning would be completed after three sittings of the treatment and the cost of the package would be Rs.5000/-. But on completion of the 1st sitting a huge infection in the teeth occurred followed by swelling of gum together with severe pain. For this the petitioner visited the clinic of respondents’ several times but no relief was afforded. On 26.10.10 the attending doctor prescribed medicine for remission of pain but he got no substantial relief even after huge expenses by petitioner. Petitioner thought it was the drilling, sealing and x-raying of the tooth that caused the severe damage to his body. The drilling was done in a rough and crude manner that caused severe pain. The petitioner had to remain confined for three weeks to his house and had to cancel the classes in City College being a faculty member due to severe pain. Further, at the time of drilling of his 7th tooth was broken due to rough drilling and the attending doctor gave irresponsible assurances to cure his problem and debarred him from having treatment from elsewhere to have relief. Subsequently petitioner consulted with Dr. Sourav Ghosh and the Director of the respondent and both of them told the petitioner that the treatment was being done properly. Later on a phone call was made by petitioner for obtaining a date for examination but no response was forthcoming from the respondent’s side. Finding no other alternative petitioner visited Prof (Dr) H.D. Adhikary on 24.01.11 with pain and sensitivity in the tooth for his advice. The doctor on examination of x-ray opined that during the course of drilling there was a bone injury and there was little possibility of the pain subsiding and implantation of crown would be a remedial method. The petitioner was still suffering from pain and sensitivity in his tooth and unable to use the right side of his jaw properly.

3. Petitioner has prayed that the respondents/ opposite parties may be directed to pay the claim being the cost of compensation amounting to Rs.4,25,000/- to the petitioner together with the cost of proceeding assessed at Rs.10,000/- and the treatment expenses estimated at Rs.15,000/- thus making a total of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner along with any such further or other orders deemed fit and proper.

4. Respondent/ opposite party in their reply before the District Forum have denied all the allegations in the complaint. They have stated that the petitioner attended OPD of respondent no. 1 with the complaint of sensitivity and pain on biting in the lower right side of his jaw. The respondent no. 2 examined him and found dental caries and severe attrition on the surface of lower right second molar tooth. The petitioner gave history of extraction of lower right first molar tooth. The patient was advised to come after getting an x-ray done. Such radiological investigation was done elsewhere and the petitioner came for further treatment. The x-ray report was seen and he was advised for root canal treatment to save the said tooth as the x-ray showed radioloscency approximating the pulp in the concerned tooth. The petitioner showed interest in saving the tooth as the immediate next tooth was missing due to previous extraction which was done elsewhere, and he could not chew properly due