IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that performing medical procedures without necessity and without obtaining required consent constitutes medical negligence under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi (for short, ‘the National Commission’) in Revision Petition No.2736 of 2012, whereby the NCDRC, while upholding the compensation awarded by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.126 of 2012, reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 6% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. N. Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T. Anitha, the respondent No.2 – party–inperson.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the District Forum.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 26.07.2008, the respondent No.2 – complainant approached the petitioneropposite party with a complaint of gap between her chewing teeth in the upper left side upper jaw, due to which, there was difficulty in chewing as well as mild pain in the teeth. Dr. Karthik Reddy, the doctor at opposite party, instead of giving treatment to the problematic teeth, persuaded her to undergo Root Canal Treatment for three teeth. Accordingly, the doctor performed the Root Canal Treatment for three upper teeth, though there was no necessary.

5. It is stated that on 13.08.2008, the doctor gave plastic caps to put them on the grinded teeth for 60 days, but, she faced difficulty during speech and brushing of teeth. On 04.09.2008, the complainant requested the doctor to provide at least two crowns for two upper teeth and one for lower tooth. The doctor took impression of her teeth and provided metal ceramic crown on 25.09.2008. However, the crowns started felling while talking, brushing etc. Aggrieved by the negligent dental treatment of the opposite party, the complainant filed a Consumer Complaint vide C.C.No.595 of 2009 before the District Forum-II, Hyderabad, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

6. The opposite party filed counter denying the allegations made by the complainant and stating that the complainant visited the opposite party on 10.11.2007 for surgical removal of severely decayed teeth in the upper left region. On 19.07.2008, the complainant again visited the opposite party complaining pain. The opposite party further stated that due to the age and complicated teeth movements, the orthodontic treatment was not possible. Therefore, the complainant was advised for Root Canal Treatment and fixation of crowns. Accordingly, Root Canal Treatment was done by a competent Endodontist. It was further stated that the complainant might have got the treatment from outside the clinic of the opposite party and had cleverly got the teeth grinded to a level that they can be restored by post core technique, to demand money from the opposite party. It is further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the Consumer Complaint.

7. On behalf of the complainant, Exs.A.1 to A.21 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party, Exs.B.1 to B. 8 were marked.

8. The District Forum, after hearing both parties and considering the entire material available on record, dismissed C.C.No.595 of 2009 holding that the complainant could not make out any case of medical negligence vide order dated 30.12.2011.

9. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.12.2011, the complainant filed an appeal vide First Appeal No.126 of 2012 before the State Commission. The State Commission, on reappreciation of the entire evidence and perusal of the material available on record, vide order dated 04.06.2012 allowed the appeal directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., 13.06.2009 till the date of realisation, and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2012 passed by the State Commission, the opposite party filed a revision