During the first half of January, the Delhi Medical Council issued advertisements warning consumers to not fall prey to “quacks”. Unfortunately, the advertisement failed to give the most crucial information to the public — on how to identify a quack or how to make sure the allopathic doctor one is consulting is not making a false claim about his or her educational qualifications or registration.
In fact, there is an urgent need for all state authorities that register medical practitioners (including those practicing Indian systems or alternative systems) to ensure that the list of such registered doctors is regularly updated and made easily available in local languages at every village post office (through the Internet). This would come handy if a consumer wanted to do some due diligence before approaching a doctor. Consumer education and awareness about the availability of such lists will also go a long way in protecting the interests of patients.
An order of the apex consumer court delivered on January 13 illustrates how in the absence of such information, consumers can fall prey to false claims and misrepresentation. In this case, on noticing his eight-year-old son was growing two new teeth behind the existing ones in the lower jaw, Mr Vijay Kumar Srivastava took the child to Kumar Dental Health Care Centre in Goplaganj District of Bihar, in the belief that Kumar was a dentist with a BDS degree and registered with the Dental Council. Kumar’s letterhead for example, said: Dr M. Kumar, BDS. Below it was written: Registration No: 145/99.
Kumar examined the child and advised extraction of the two old teeth. However, after the process was complete, the father noticed that all the four teeth had been removed. On his complaint, Kumar apparently admitted that it was a mistake, but assured the parent that two new teeth would come up within three weeks. However, that did not happen and the child had lost two teeth permanently.
While holding Kumar guilty of misrepresentation and thereby an unfair trade practice, the consumer courts at the state as well as the national level pointed out that as per the degree in alternative medicine he possessed, he could call himself BDS (Alt), but not BDS, as he had done. He was therefore asked to pay Srivastava Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as costs (Dr M. Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar Srivastava, RP No 2772 of 2010).
It is unfortunate that people like Kumar do not take pride in the system of medicine they are qualified to practice and instead pretend to be holding a qualification in the allopathic system.
