ORDER

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 23/06/2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred as “District Commission ” for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2019/48, filed by the respondent No.1 herein alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service against the appellant herein and seeking direction to the opposite parties/ the Date of Pronouncement:

28/04/2023 Dismissed Page 2 of 10 appellant and respondent No.2 herein to return the fee of teeth fixing Rs.25,000/- and compensation for physical, mental and financial loss Rs.65,000/- i.e. in all Rs.90,000/- along with cost of litigation and any other relief the learned District Commission deems fit. The complaint was allowed and it was directed that the opposite party No.2/ respondent No.2 herein shall pay within 45 days on behalf of the opposite party No.1/ appellant herein the treatment expenditure Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand). The opposite party No.1/ appellant herein was directed to pay compensation of Rs.65,000/- (Sixty Five Thousand) for mental agony and cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousand). Feeling aggrieved, the opposite party No.1 has preferred this appeal.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that on 02.04.2018 and 03.04.2018 the respondent No.1 / complainant went to the appellant/ opposite party No.1 Dentist for test and treatment of her teeth. The appellant / opposite party No.1 after checking up the teeth of the respondent No.1 / complainant advised that her problem will be cured by fixing permanent teeth. Believing on the said advice of the appellant Doctor the respondent No.1 / complainant took the advised treatment on 17.04.2018 and paid treatment fees of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, in the month of November 2018 the said permanent fixed teeth came out then she again contacted the appellant Doctor, who in turn again fixed the teeth which came out again on 02.01.2019 due to which she suffered excessive pain and mental, physical and financial loss. When the respondent No.1/ complainant again contacted the appellant / opposite party No.1 Doctor, then he demanded more amount and misbehaved with her. Then she visited the District Hospital. The Doctor of the District Hospital after treatment informed the respondent No.1 / complainant that without extracting the Date of Pronouncement:

28/04/2023 Dismissed Page 3 of 10 root of the teeth, permanent teeth was fixed, therefore it is coming out time and again and thus the appellant / opposite party No.1 Doctor has committed deficiency in service. Legal notice was also sent, in reply of which the appellant / opposite party No.1 demanded further amount from her. Therefore, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant / opposite party No.1 the complaint was filed.

3. The appellant / opposite party No.1 filed his written version to the effect that the respondent No.1/ complainant is an old lady of 80 years who came with the history of treatment of her teeth from some other Doctor and that the set of teeth fixed earlier was broken. Thereafter, looking to her age, the appellant / opposite party No.1 advised for root canal treatment to cure her problem. As per need and consent of the respondent No.1/ complainant new set of teeth was fixed and expenditure of which was about Rs.37,000/- but the complainant / opposite party showed her inability to pay that much amount hence only partial payment of Rs.25,000/- were received from her and balance amount still remains to be paid. This fact has specifically been denied that the teeth fixed by the appellant/ opposite party No.1 got damaged and broken. It is stated that in fact in the month of November the respondent No.1 / complai