CHARLES K THOMAS Vs. MERCY JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is preferred against the order dated 26th December, 2006 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC No. 225/05. The complaint in the said CC 225/05 was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party claiming compensation of Rs. 1,24,150 on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Dental Surgeon in treating the complainant for her left upper premolar and canine teeth. The opposite party entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency in service. He contended that there was no negligence on his part in treating the complainant. It is further contended that the conducted root canal treatment for the left canine tooth of the complainant and that he had nothing to do with the left upper premolar tooth of the complainant. Thus, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(2.) BEFORE the Forum below two expert Doctors who treated the complainant were examined as PWs 1 and 2. The complainant has been examined as PW3 Exts. P1 to P11 documents were also marked on her side. Form the side of the opposite party he himself has been examined as DW1. R1 to R3 were also marked on his side. Exts. X1 to X3 documents were produced by PWs 1 and 2 and those documents were also marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record. The Forum below found the opposite party negligent in treating the complaint to the left premolar and thereby the impugned order passed directing the opposite party to pay compensation Rs. 35,000 with cost of Rs. 2,500 with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party therein.

(3.) WHEN this appeal was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He argued for the position that the opposite party/Dental Surgeon had no occasion to do the root canal treatment for the left premolar of the complainant and that the treatment was done in the year 2002; that the infection to the left premolar occurred only in the year 2005 and that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party/Dental Surgeon in treating the complainant. It is further submitted that the Forum below totally relied on the testimony of PW3 and thereby found the opposite party as negligent. He much relied on the entries in R3 medical prescription produced from the side of the opposite party/Dental Surgeon. It is also submitted that the presence of a portion of the reamer in the left premolar of the complainant cannot be considered as negligence as PW2, the expert Dental Surgeon admitted the fact that breaking of reamer while doing root canal treatment is quite common. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. The points that arise for consideration are: