Failure to explain full procedure: Delhi Hospital, dentist held liable for deficiency in service, Rs 15k compensation ordered

After some time, the doctor informed that she had done the filling and root canal of her teeth and advised her to take medicines as per the prescription, which would help her to reduce the pain. 

It was alleged by the patient that she took medicines for three days, but did not get any relief; since she was feeling unbearable pain, she was forced to consult another doctor having a clinic in her vicinity. As per the complainant, she visited the doctor and he prescribed her medicines.

The patient submitted that even though she got relief from the pain, she was shocked, as after the examination, Dr. Kaushish informed her about the actual position of her jaw which was altogether different from the treatment done by the doctor at the treating hospital. Therefore, the complainant alleged that the hospital charged the amount for the services/treatment which was never given to the her.

When the patient approached the first treating doctor again, she was given assurance of not facing any problem in future. Further, when she asked about the discrepancy noticed by her in the bill dated 29.12.2020, she was informed by the doctor that overbilling was done by all the hospitals to meet the expenses and also admitted that the complainant did not get the treatment as mentioned in the prescription given by the doctor.

Apart from this, the complainant raised allegations regarding lack of proper facilities and equipment and safe and suitable environment, violation of COVID protocol, dissatisfying treatment, etc. Since the problem did not cure completely, the complainant visited the second doctor again in September, 2021, and the doctor advised to get another X-ray. After the X-ray, the said doctor allegedly removed the cotton piping which was left inside by the first treating doctor while filling her teeth. Apart from this, the complainant was also informed that the first treating doctor allegedly did not complete the root canal procedure, as no capping was done by her.

Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, the patient prayed for a direction to the treating hospital to pay Rs 28,810 (treatment expenses) with interest @18%, along with Rs 3 lakh compensation towards medical negligence, deficiency of service, and unfair trade practice, Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony, and Rs 88,000 towards legal and miscellaneous expenses.

On the other hand, the hospital submitted that the treating doctor was not a regular at the hospital. It was stated that the treating doctor asked the patient to get the billing done to begin appropriate procedure which requires four to five visits for the complete procedure. It was claimed that the doctor explained the complete treatment.

The counsel for the hospital contended that since the dental procedures require several visits, the total charges for the treatment were taken from the patient in the first appointment meeting to make it easier for the patients. It was admitted by the complainant that the root canal of her teeth was done, which requires several visits to complete the procedure. The treatment was started soon after the registration process was completed by the patient.

Further, the hospital informed the consumer court that the complainant was charged for restoration of the 8th tooth, flap surgery of the 4th tooth, root canal treatment of the 5th tooth and one x-ray, but the complainant went to some other local doctor for the treatment before completing her course of treatment with the treating dentist. Hence, all the allegations of medical negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the hospital and doctor were denied.

While considering the matter, the consumer court noted that the complainant took an appointment for her dental treatment from the treating hospital and her appointment was booked with a dental doctor- Dr. Gulati. "Complainant visited OP-2 in the Hospital of OP-1 on 29.12.2020. It is not in dispute that complainant paid Rs.8,210/- to OP-1 for the following services- i. Restorations-composite filling Grade -1 ii. Soft tissue management flap surgery Grade-1 iii. Root Canal treatment-RCT iv. Radiology-OPG," noted the consumer court.

It was the complainant's case that even though she was charged for the services mentioned above, the said services were not actually provided to her, and she had to visit another dental doctor to get the same treatments. In support of her complaint, she placed the photocopy and bill, prescription of the second doctor, and the follow up treatment in September, 2020, when cotton was removed from the the patient's mouth and X-ray was taken and RCT was done.

Taking note of the submissions, the consumer court observed, "This is a case of res ipsa loquitor. Complainant visited OP-2 who started the process of RCT and did temporary filling wherein cotton was used so that hole does not get blocked. As RCT required more sittings no capping was done. It is common knowledge that many dental procedures require several visits/sitting based on the clinical condition of the patient.It is seen that complainant’s root canal was done on 29.12.2020 and some medicines was prescribed to her. As the complainant did not find relief from her pain rather than visiting OP-2 again, she preferred going to another dental doctor on 02.01.2021."

"It is seen that temporary filling of complainant’s tooth was done wherein the cotton was used so that the hole is not blocked and complainant was supposed to get the permanent filling and capping done later on. The complainant was not communicated properly with regards to her next visit. It is noticed that complainant went to Dr Kaushish(another doctor) for the treatment of RCT again on 19.09.2021 i.e approximately after nine months of the treatment taken from OP-2," it further noted.

However, the consumer court observed that even though the complainant submitted that she visited the treating doctor again, no prescription or any bill regarding the second sitting was filed by the complainant. At this outset, the commission observed, "It is not clear whether the complainant was treated further and charged again for the second visit to OP-2. It is general practice that total charges for the treatment are taken from the patient in the first appointment to make it easier for the patient."

Holding the first treating doctor deficient in service, the Commission observed,

"On perusal of the material placed before us, this seems to be a case where the dental doctor (OP-2) has failed to explain the appropriate procedure and the time taken for the treatment. OP-2 is found to be deficient in service as the prescription does not reflect whether the complainant required more sittings or the treatment was complete in one sitting itself. No date further has been mentioned in the prescription or the bill. OP-2 is found to be deficient in service for not informing the complainant regarding the next date of her visit or when was she supposed to visit OP-2 for permanent filling and capping."

The Commission also held the hospital liable, as the complainant had booked the appointment from the treating hospital. It noted, "We opine that OP-1cannot wash of its hands by stating that OP-1 was not the doctor of OP-1 but was working as a Doctor of dental department at M/s Focus Dental Service Pvt Ltd. as the complainant had got the appointment booked from OP-1 and had not specifically asked to be booked with OP-2. OP-1 cannot be absolved of its liability as the appointment of OP-2 was booked by OP-1 and also the fact that complainant has made the payment to OP-1."

Accordingly, the commission slapped a compensation of Rs 15000 on both the hospital and the doctor. It ordered, "In light of the discussion above, OP-1 and OP-2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.15,000/- towards deficiency in service within 03 months from the date of order failing which OPs shall pay the above stated amount with interest @5% p.a till realization."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/dcdrc-south-delhi-304401.pdf

Also Read: Bodybuilder Varinder Singh Ghuman dies after surgery; Family alleges medical negligence