S.B.TIWARI vs G.PRANAV ADHYANI

THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against the order dated 16.9.93 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry in Dispute No. 4/92. The respondent herein was the opposite party in the complaint.

THE case of The complainant was that he went to the clinic of the opposite party on 12.12.91 for the removal of a tooth and that without any case study or proper test, his tooth was removed on 14.12.91. On 15.12.91, he alongwith his wife went to the opposite party''s clinic complaining about over bleeding and he was sent back home with some pain killers. Since bleeding did not stop, he went to Ashok Nursing Home where his blood pressure was found to be 220/160. After . treatment, bleeding stopped, but he had severe headache. On 24.12.91, he was advised to consult a Neurologist at Madras. He had consultations in three clinics in Madras and he was ultimately treated at Sri Balaji Hospital, Madras. The complainant prayed the State Commission to direct the opposite party to pay compensation for injury on account of careless and negligent treatment, for loss of income and mental agony. The opposite party stated that all usual precautions were taken while removing the upper tooth. The complainant did not disclose his health condition before extraction of tooth. His blood pressure was taken and found to be normal, the extraction was smooth and after extraction, the complainant was made to sit for sometime in the clinic and there was no abnormal bleeding. The complainant was sent home and provided with a notice indicating the steps to be taken by way of precaution. The opposite party also denied that the complainant came to see him on 15.12.91. On the basis of evidence adduced by both parties in the form of depositions and documents, the State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party on three counts : (i) Whereas the complainant was known hypertensive, he deposed before the Commission that he had not taken any medicine for blood pressure before extraction. The opposite party was consistent in his averment that blood pressure was taken and was found to be 130/90; (ii) The complainant did not adduce adequate evidence to show that he went alongwith his wife to the opposite party on 15.12.91 complaining about the over bleeding and that the opposite party sent them back home without finding out the reason for the over bleeding and curing it; (iii) There was no evidence to link the headache with the extraction. From the medical certificate of Ashoka Nursing Home where the complainant was admitted on 15.12.91, there was no complaint of headache then and headache was noticed only on 19.12.91. There was thus a gap of time between the extraction and development of headache. Further the Discharge Summary Slip of Sri Balaji Hospital indicated that the headache was probably due to the haemorrhage and hypertension. It was a case of alcohol dependence with organic brain syndrome. In the light of the aforesaid, the State Commission concluded that it was extremely impossible to hold that the headache which the complainant suffered from four days after the extraction of the tooth was due to any careless and incompetent hand ling by the opposite party.

IN the Appeal, the complainant has reiterated the points he had raised before the State Commission. We have examined the available material on the record and heard the Counsel. We are convinced that the State Commission has gone into the evidence before it and the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and given sound reasons for its finding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondent herein. We, therefore, confirm the order of the State Commission. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.