STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution : 05.12.2016 Date of Final Hearing : 01.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 SC/5/A/16/240 Prakash Dental Hospital Through Dr. Anurag Agarwal Rampur Road, Haldwani, Nainital and Mansarovar Hotel Near Mallital Rickshaw Stand, Mallital, Nainital (Through: Mohd. Muzammil, Advocate)

…..Appellant VERSUS

1. Smt. Heera Devi W/o Late Sh. Trilok Singh Rawat

2. Sh. Lalit Mohan Rawat S/o Late Sh. Trilok Singh Rawat Both R/o Hotel Coronation Building, Opposite Nainital Club Mallital, Nainital (Through: Sh. Shardul Negi, Advocate)

…..Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Office 321100, 195 Motiganj, Meerut – 250001

4. National Insurance Company Limited Branch Office First 710-711 Opposite Sehgal Motors, Motiganj Meerut - 250001 (Through: Sh. R.K. Devliyal, Advocate)

…..Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against judgment and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nainital (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 99 of 2013 styled as Sh. Trilok Sigh Rawat & Ors. Vs. Prakash Dental Hospital and Others, wherein and whereby the complaint was partly allowed directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and financial loss to the complainant Nos. 1/1 & 1/2, failing which the opposite party No. 1 shall pay simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint case till its actual payment. The complaint case was dismissed against the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant (deceased) began experiencing teeth sensitivity in July, 2011. He consulted opposite party No. 1 – Prakash Dental Hospital at his clinic in Nainital, where he had advised to undergo an X-ray and Root Canal Treatment (hereinafter to be referred as RCT) for four tooth alongwith placement of dental caps. The opposite party No. 1 further recommended the placement of dental bridge on two damaged tooth on left side, assuring the complainant that this would restore normal chewing function using the molars. A complete guarantee for the treatment was assured by the opposite party No. 1. The total cost was quoted as Rs. 20,000/- which the complainant agreed to pay. However, on the very first day of treatment, due to apparent negligence healthy tooth was broken and the gum had to be incised to extract the root. The RCT was left to incomplete and bridge was placed improperly on the left tooth. The complainant was directed to visit the clinic situated at Haldwani for proper fitting, but the bridge was ill-fitted, resulting food particles repeatedly getting lodged. The complainant was again called for follow-up and was advised to remove the food particles by using a wire brush, which clearly demonstrated negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 was aware that he had installed the bridge incorrectly and hence assured to replace the bridge which shows negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1. The RCT performed by the opposite party No. 1 completely failed causing the complainant to suffer unbearable pain on installing bridge on broken teeth as well as on the teeth where the RCT was carried out. Due to this, the opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant to remove the bridge and extract the teeth on which RCT was performed merely four days earlier. The opposite party No. 1 provided the receipts of amount deposited earlier on 11.12.2011 and 04.02.2012. Although, the payments were duly made, but proper and satisfactory treatment was not provided, amounting to deficiency in service. These dental complications significantly impaired the complainant’s ability to eat and drink, adversely affec