Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The Complainant, resides in Australia and underwent dental treatment by OP-2 Doctor at the OP-1 Hospital on 07.03.2014. On examination, OP-2 advised root canal treatment (RCT) and a dental cap for the damaged teeth. Accordingly, the OPs received various payments on different dates from her. However, the OPs failed to provide a consolidated bill even after the treatment was completed on 27.03.2014, causing her parents to visit the OPs Hospital multiple times. Consequently, her father, who was a bank employee was unable to get reimbursement of treatment cost. Also, OPs did not properly treat her, necessitating further dental treatment in Australia, including capping costing. This OPs conduct constituted deciency in service and unfair trade practice. Being aggrieved, she, through her mother and attorney holder Mrs. Kavita Sharma, led case in the District Forum, seeking compensation for the treatment expenses along with litigation costs.The District Forum vide Order dated 22.10.2018 allowed the complaint, nding the OPs liable for deciency in service and unfair trade practices in treating the complainant. The Forum directed the OPs to pay towards treatment expenses along with interest at 9% per annum. Additionally, she was awarded as compensation for harassment and litigation costs. However, on Appeal, the State Commission overturned this decision, concluding that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the Respondents. NCDRC disposing of Revision Petition observed that undisputedly, the Complainant underwent dental treatment at the OPs hospital, including root canal treatment (RCT) and dental crown. However, issues arose regarding the treatment process, billing and subsequent dental care. Additionally, there were concerns regarding consolidated bill and difculties in obtaining reimbursement from the Complainant's employer, a bank.
Yadav et al. (Thu,) studied this question.