STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/32/CC/19/2012 SWATHI PRESENT ADDRESS - SAPHLYAM,PURA.81,PITCHIVILA LANE,POOJAPURA.P.O ,KERALA.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus DR.JOHN CHERIAN PRESENT ADDRESS - CHERIANS DENTAL CARE CENTRE,POOJAPURA ,KERALA.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

NEMO FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NEMO DATED: 24/06/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM C.C.No.19/2012 JUDGEMENT DATED : 24.06.2025 PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER COMPLAINANT:

Swathy, Saphalyam, PURA 81, Pitchivila Lane, Poojappura P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 12 (by Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1. Dr. John Cherian, Dentist, Cherian’s Dental Care Centre, Opposite Hindustan Latex, Regd. Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram

2. Dr. Mathew Jose (Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery), Cherian’s Dental Care Centre, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram

3. M/s Cherian’s Dental Care Centre, Opposite Hindustan Latex, Regd.

Office, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram (by Advs. Shyam Padman & S. Reghukumar)

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Dr. John Cherian, Dr. Mathew Jose and M/s Cherian’s Dental Care Centre alleging medical negligence.

2. The averments contained in the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant is a student aged 19 years doing her B.Tech. course in Lourde Matha rd College of Engineering. She has been consulting the 3 opposite party clinic at various points of time for treatment in connection with dental problems for the last more than six years. She had availed treatment on ten occasions on various dates. On 10.12.2011 the nd st complainant had gone to the 2 opposite party after consultation with the 1 opposite party for the operation of the left upper canine molar portion. Instead of carrying out the operation nd on the specific molar (left upper canine) the 2 opposite party proceeded with the above operation after administering local anaesthesia. The complainant was not informed about the removal of these two teeth. She thought that an operation for gingivectomy of the left upper canine and as she was under the influence of the local anaesthesia, she had no occasion to nd think of any attempt on the part of the 2 opposite party for the removal of two teeth.

nd

3. At the end of the operation, the 2 opposite party showed the complainant two teeth and told her that the same were extracted from the upper and lower portion of the right nd molars. The complainant became perplexed and confused and the 2 opposite party tried to pacify her by trying to impress upon her that the removal of two teeth could provide more comfort and aesthetic appearance than before. Aggrieved by the irresponsible conduct of the nd

2 opposite party, the complainant, her father and two others had visited the clinic on 11.12.2011 seeking explanation and recourses of remedy of such a foul play on the part of nd the 2 opposite party to a girl aged 19 years who was grooming her youthful hopes for a bright future.

st

4. The 1 opposite party had admitted that there was some negligence on the nd st operation conducted by the 2 opposite party. The 1 opposite party was ready to make good the loss by replacing the active and live teeth by means of two artificial teeth even at an advanced clinic of complainant’s choice and at whatever costs occurred will be borne by the nd opposite parties. The complainant’s father and the 2 opposite party had a discussion and nd the 2 opposite party was trying to emphasise that there was an urgency for the removal of two teeth as part of advanced cosmetry. On the pretext of orthodontic correction he supported the removal of two teeth. But he kept silence about the treatment of gingivectomy for which the complai