Denture Of Excessive Height, Central Delhi District Commission Holds Delhi Dental & Medical Centre Liable For Negligence

Brief Facts:

Mr Mohinder Singh (“Complainant”), an ex-serviceman and member of the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Services Scheme (ECHS), sought dental treatment at the ECHS polyclinic in Delhi Cantt. He underwent a procedure to remove all his teeth and gums, after which he was referred to the Delhi Dental & Medical Centre (“Medical Centre”) in Old Rajendra Nagar (Delhi) for the fabrication of a necessary denture.

Later, when the Complainant visited the Medical Centre, he was presented with two denture options: one covered by ECHS and another, more attractive option that required an additional payment of Rs. 10,000/-. Choosing the latter, the Complainant paid the amount in two instalments. However, the new denture caused him significant problems, including discomfort, scratches, wounds, and pain during chewing. Despite regular complaints to the doctors, the Medical Centre maintained that the adjustment period could take more than six months. Seeking a second opinion from another doctor, the Complainant was informed that the denture's height was excessive which was causing issues and pain to the Complainant. Despite the Complainant's requests, the Medical Centre refused to change the denture, suggesting adherence to a schedule to alleviate the issues. This approach proved ineffective, leaving the Complainant in continuous pain and discomfort until September 2017, when he decided to obtain a new denture from another dental surgeon.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi, Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Medical Centre. The Complainant alleged that the Medical Centre deceived him by luring him into paying an extra Rs. 10,000/- and failed to address the manufacturing defect in the denture. The Complainant supported his claim with a letter from Dr. (Maj) Varun Nischal (Retd.) which stated that the denture's height was excessive.

In response, the Medical Centre contended that the denture fabrication process is as universally challenging, requiring repeated adjustments and seating. It denied the Complainant's allegations, asserting that the Complainant was made aware of potential issues during denture use and gave consent. The Medical Centre questioned the authenticity of Dr Varun Nischal's certificate and argued that the complaint was contradictory and mala-fide. It asserted that the Complainant failed to inform it of changing doctors, which it deemed inappropriate due to the fiduciary relationship between a doctor and a patient. The Medical Centre further claimed that the Complainant, after multiple seating sessions, did not report manufacturing defects but instead complained of ulceration, which it addressed.

Observations by the Commission:

Referring to the letter by Dr. Varun Nischal, the District Commission noted that while the letter was undated, it indicated the Complainant's discomfort with the dispensed denture. Dismissing the Medical Centre's claim of the fabrication of the letter, the District Commission upheld the authenticity of the letter.

Further, the District Commission noted that the Complainant's record of services from Ashok Dental Medical Centre and the receipt for the new denture supported the contention that the replaced denture functioned properly and comfortably. The District Commission recognized the uniqueness of each patient, especially concerning physical features relevant to denture fitting. It was established that the Complainant, at the new clinic, was prescribed a new denture tailored to his specific needs, indicating that the existing denture from the Medical Centre was not conducive to the Complainant's comfort or functionality.

The District Commission noted that the Complainant incurred an additional expense of Rs. 15,000/- for a new denture because the one provided by the Medical Centre was defective. The District Commission held the Medical Centre liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the Medical Centre to pay Rs. 15,000/- (refund and compensation included) to the Complainant. Additionally, the District Commission directed the Medical Centre to pay Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Mohinder Singh vs The Delhi Dental & Medical Centre

Case No.: CC/10/2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order