In a significant judgment, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld the decision of the Rajasthan State Consumer Commission, ruling that there was no medical negligence on the part of a dental hospital and its doctor in treating a patient, Ruchika Sharma. The case, Revision Petition No. 1837 of 2019, was heard by a bench comprising Hon’ble AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member.
Background
The case dates back to 2014 when Ruchika Sharma, a resident of Australia, underwent dental treatment, including root canal treatment (RCT) and a dental crown, at Dr. Dorwal and Dental Hospital in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Dissatisfied with the treatment, she filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The District Forum initially ruled in favor of Ruchika Sharma, finding the dental hospital and Dr. Rakesh Dorwal liable and awarding compensation. However, on appeal, the State Commission overturned the decision, concluding that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the respondents.
Legal Issues
The primary issue before the NCDRC was to examine whether there was deficiency in the dental treatment and billing provided to the complainant by the dental hospital and its doctor. The complainant alleged that the treatment was unsatisfactory, leading to additional expenses and inconvenience, while the respondents asserted that they provided appropriate treatment and that any discrepancies in billing were due to procedural issues rather than negligence.
NCDRC’s Observations and Decision
In its order dated May 31, 2024, the NCDRC made several important observations:
1. The Hon’ble Commission cited the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases like Dr. Laxman Balkrishan Joshi vs. Dr. Triambak Bapu Godbole and Anr. and Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, which laid down the duties of a doctor and the standard of care expected.
2. The Commission observed, “Based on the discussion above, there is nothing substantial that has been brought on record by the Complainant to establish that the Respondent Doctor failed to fulfill his duty of care in providing dental treatment to the Complainant in accordance with the reasonable standard of medical practice.”
3. Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Devarakonda Suryasesha Mani v Care Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, the NCDRC stated, “Unless the appellants are able to establish before this Court any specific course of conduct suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctors on the line of medical treatment which was administered.”
Based on these observations, the NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition No. 1837 of 2019, upholding the State Commission’s order and ruling that neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice was established.
The complainant, Ruchika Sharma, was represented by Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, along with Mrs. Kavita Sharma (mother and attorney), while the respondents, Dr. Dorwal and Dental Hospital and Dr. Rakesh Dorwal, were represented by Ms. Ambika Desai, Advocate.