Consumer Court holds No Medical Negligence of Dentist during RCT treatment, dismisses complaint for tooth damage

Hooghly: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, recently exonerated a Bengal based dentist from charges of medical negligence while conducting Root Canal Therapy (RCT) procedure on a patient.

Although the patient claimed that because of improper and poor RCT, her tooth got damaged and it had be extracted later, the consumer court opined that there was no medical negligence after considering the opinion of another dentist who had treated the patient.

The second dentist had opined that failure of RCT can happen due to poor oral hygiene, systemic causes, calcium and vitamin D3 deficiency. Further, he also stated that he had not endorsed anywhere in his treatment papers that the doctor who did R.C.T. was negligent in treating the patient.

Taking cognizance of this fact, the District Consumer Court opined, "This part of the evidence is clearly reflecting that there was no fault on the part of the op, doctor," and exonerated the dentist Dr. Joy Mahanta.

Also Read: No negligence in treatment of Seborrheic Dermatitis: Consumer forum relief to Dermatologist, Polyclinic

Back in 2016, the patient had attended Dr. Mahanta for her dental treatment and she was under treatment for more than six months. During this period, the dentist had conducted R.C.T on lower back tooth of the patient. Thereafter, in October, 2017, the patient felt severe pain in left lower teeth and approached Smile & Profile Dental Treatment Centre, Chandannagar for check-up on emergency basis. At the clinic, Dr. Sourav Chakroborty treated the patient.

It was alleged that according to Radiographical Survey Report of Smile & Profile the findings was that the R.C.T was not done properly done. Due to wrong treatment, that tooth was bifurcated and other associated teeth were being damaged, alleged the petitioner. Since the R.C.T was very poor and no further treatment was possible with that damaged tooth, the petitioner alleged in the complaint before the Consumer Court and demanded Rs 1 lakh as compensation for physical illness, pain, mental agony, harassment, loss of valuable time, expenditure of treatments and other expenses.

On the other hand, the concerned dentist denied all the allegations of negligence levelled against him. It was submitted by the doctor that initially he had made filling in two teeth of the patient and later discussed if she wanted her left lower 2nd molar (7th tooth) extracted or to retain the same by way of Root Canal Therapy followed by full veneer porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crown i.e. Endodontic treatment.

Since the patient opted for such treatment, IOPA (Intra Oral Periapical) radiograph was advised. Except for those fillings and except that advice of IOPA no other medicine was prescribed. Consequently, RCT was started and referring to the entire treatment procedure, the doctor claimed that the entire RCT procedure was done strictly in conformity to the appropriate procedure as provided in the text books.

Finally, after completion of the procedure, the doctor claimed that since there was no pain, no hassle , no analgesic or any medicine was prescribed. After two months, the patient came for crown reduction and at that time also the patient had no pain or complication. Finally, the complainant came and the PFM crown was cemented on the tooth and then also the patient did not complain of any pain in the teeth.

In December 2016, the patient approached the doctor with complaint of pain and swelling around that tooth and therefore the doctor prescribed required medicines, submitted the doctor and he claimed that after that the patient did not come to him for any further complaint.

After considering the submissions made by both the parties, examining the interrogatories, perusing the documents filed the consumer court opined that "Over this issue and/ or in the matter of arriving at just and proper decision regarding the difference of opinion and/ or apple of discord between the parties, the evidence given by Dr. Sourav Chakraborty is playing a vital role."

Referring to the evidence of Dr. Chakraborty, who stated that there are many reasons for the failure of R.C.T. due to poor oral hygiene, systemic causes, calcium and vitamin D3 deficiency, the Commission noted,

"It has also been stated by this witness that he has not endorsed anywhere in his treatment papers that the doctor who did R.C.T. was negligent in treating the patient. This part of the evidence is clearly reflecting that there was no fault on the part of the op, doctor."

Dismissing the complaint, the Consumer Court noted,

"Thus, it is crystal clear that the witness Dr. Sourav Chakraborty who provided medical treatment to the complainant in his evidence has totally destroyed/ demolished the case of the complainant. So, it is crystal clear that the complainant has failed to prove her case in respect of points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 and so this District Commission is of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief which she has prayed in this case. So, this District Commission has no other way but to dismiss this case on contest."

To read the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/no-medical-negligence-west-bengal-196777.pdf

Also Read: No cure of fracture not Negligence: NCDRC relief to govt hospital, doctor