STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/447/2018 null DR.RAJESH GANGADHARAN PRESENT ADDRESS - MALABAR DENTAL CLINIC VANDOOR PO MALAPURAM ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SHAKKIRA PRESENT ADDRESS - PUNTHIRUTHI HOUSE VANIYAMBALAM PO MALAPURAM ,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

DR.RAJESH GANGADHARAN, In-Person FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SHAKKIRA, In-Person DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No. 447/2018 JUDGEMENT DATED: 21.02.2025 (Against the Order in C.C.No.199/2015 of DCDRC, Malappuram)

PRESENT:

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

Dr. Rajesh Gangadharan BDS, Chief Dental Surgeon, Malabar Dental Clinic, Bus Stand, Pandikkad Road, Vandoor P.O., Malappuram (by Adv. Shyam Padman, Adv. S. Reghukumar and Adv. Threya J. Pillai)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Shakkira, D/o Abdul Aseez, Punthiruthi House, P.O. Vaniyambalam, Malappuram (by Adv. Jithu S. Babu and Adv. Arundhathi A.R.)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT

The appellant is the opposite party in C.C.No.199/2015 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (for short ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant filed a complaint alleging medical negligence against the opposite party in the treatment given to her. The complainant approached the opposite party on 17.09.2013 with a complaint of tooth ache. The root canal treatment was commenced on 17.09.2013. Thereafter, it continued on 21.09.2013 and 02.10.2013. The crown was fixed on 02.10.2013. However, after six months, the crown was dislodged and the complainant had tooth ache. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party. Then the opposite party again fixed a new crown on 08.04.2014. The said crown also got dislodged and there was inflammation also. Therefore, the complainant approached Fathima Dental Clinic for further treatment. The complainant demanded back the amount spent by the complainant from the opposite party. However, the opposite party was not prepared to return the amount. In the said circumstances, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service in the treatment of the complainant by the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed a version denying the allegations in the complaint. The opposite party contended that the complainant had approached the opposite party on 17.09.2013 with a complaint of pain in the lower right first molar.

On examination, the opposite party was convinced that the patient was having poor oral hygiene and deep caries involving pulp. The opposite party diagnosed that the patient had caries exposure with pulpitis and early periapical involvement. Therefore, she was advised for root canal treatment followed by crown or extraction. The patient opted for root canal treatment and, accordingly, root canal treatment was commenced on 17.09.2013. The root canal treatment continued on 29.09.2013 also.

4. The patient came to the opposite party on 02.10.2013 for crown preparation and she was not having any pain. The crown preparation was done, and an impression was taken of the fabricated crown and sent it to the lab on 08.10.2013. The fabricated crown was fixed to the satisfaction of the patient. The warranty card was also given to the patient. After six months, i.e. on 08.04.2014, the patient again reported to the opposite party and submitted that the crown was lost. There was no complaint of pain at that time.

5. The patient was advised to go for post and core treatment to restore or strengthen the lost tooth structure, before placement of the new crown. But the patient was not willing for post and core treatment. Therefore, the tooth structure was restored by