Patient gets stitches after Lip Cut during Dental Procedure, Consumer Court directs Orthodontist to pay compensation
Bengaluru: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru recently asked an Orthodontist to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to a patient who suffered a lip cut while undergoing a dental procedure.
Apart from the compensation, the consumer court has also asked the orthodontist Dr Vinod Pattabiraman to pay Rs 10,000 as legal expenses to the Complainant after holding that the doctor had a casual approach and negligent attitude in treating the wound of the patient.
"The casual approach of OP2 made the complainant to suffer all these problems and she was made to run from one hospital to other hospital during covid 19 lock down period by living her small children with her neighbors in the late night. Under these circumstances the complainant has clearly established the casual approach and negligent attitude of the OP2 in treating the wound which was caused during the dental procedure," observed the Consumer Court.
"OP2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation expenses of R.10,000/- to the complainant," the Commission ordered.
The matter goes back to 2020 when the complainant as taking dental treatment from Dr. Vinod Pattabiraman, who is associated with Sure Smile Dental Care. The complainant underwent dental treatment and other procedures which were suggested by the doctor for more than one year.
It was submitted by the Complainant that during the dental procedure, the doctor had allegedly used a slicer blade machine to trim the teeth of the complainant and in utter negligence, the doctor allegedly slipped the slicer blade and cut the upper lip of the complainant.
Also Read: NCDRC slaps Delhi based Hospital, doctors with RS 1.5 crore fine
Due to the cut, the complainant had severe bleeding and blood was dropping on her dress. It was alleged that the doctor had ignored the said injury, did not initiate to stitch the complainant's upper lip saying that it was not required and in a hurry rushed her back home after collecting his fees.
However, the bleeding did not stop and the complainant was forced to approach a nearby hospital for second opinion. The duty doctor suggested immediately stitching and referred the patient to another hospital. The emergency ward causality doctor after examination informed her that it was already too late and the injury was a deep lip laceration and needed stitching. The doctor advised plastic surgery, but plastic surgeon was unavailable and therefore the complainant had to avail for the stitches as emergency. Finally, the specialist hospital Doctor stitched the complainant torn lip at 11pm as it was an emergency.
After removing the plaster, the complainant shockingly observed that there was massive damage caused to her face due to the negligent behaviour of the doctor, alleged the complainant. Her lip was swollen to double the size and it was torn exactly in between just below the nose and is having five stitches and ugly scar.
The complainant alleged that negligence on the part of the doctor cost the complainant a major scar and pain for life and her face got damaged and filed the consumer complaint seeking compensation.
On the other hand, the doctor submitted that the complainant did not pay the entire amount for treatment. He also submitted that during the course of treatment, there was a small laceration on the upper lip of the complainant caused by the instrument which was neither due to negligence nor intentionally. The unintentional injury to the soft tissue in the course of dental treatment procedure was a possibility causing bleeding which arrests itself and does not cause any serious problem, argued the dentist.
The dentist further submitted that he arrested the bleeding immediately by application of adrenaline, pressure and ice and also gave pressure dressing which was adequate as the laceration was minimal on the vermillion lip. He further argued that minor laceration of this type heals uneventfully without leaving any scar. The bleeding allegedly stopped completely and there was no need for suture. Further, the doctor claimed that after taking care of the injury, the patient was fully comfortable and she was given two new sets of aligners to take and was given instruction for the same.
It was further claimed by the doctor that the patient was given clear instructions on the wound care and a prescription of pain medication. She was also advised to avoid movement of the healing lip and was advised not to take any hot food as it may induce bleeding. Allegedly, the doctor further advised treatment procedure over phone as well. Even though the doctor requested the complainant to attend the wound at his clinic, the complainant allegedly preferred to be attended by the duty doctor by the specialist hospital.
Pointing out that the complainant on her own volition preferred to be treated in specialist hospital, the doctor argued that he cannot be blamed for the voluntary action of the complainant in removing the plaster herself. The doctor further claimed that he treated the patient with due diligence and professional skill and there was no negligence on his part.
Taking note of the submission by both the parties, the consumer court observed,
"It is clear from the documents and evidence of both the parties that the complainant has sustained the injury on her upper lip during the dental procedure. Even though the injury was caused during the procedure the OP2 has not taken the contention that the injury was caused when the complainant was not co-operated properly during the procedure and she has shaken her mouth the injury was caused."
"It is also clear from the very evidence of the OP2 itself that he has not taken any steps to stitch the injury immediately after the incident and he has simply close the injury by putting the tissue adhesive tape on the wound. He has further advised the complainant not to move her lips and not to eat hot food," the Commission further noted.
"If the OP2 is diligent and he would have anticipated the future problems he would have stitched the wound immediately after the incident. If the OP2 stitched the wound the complainant would not have face all these problems," opined the Commission.
Holding the treating dentist's negligence, the Consumer Court also referred to the pandemic situation and noted,
"Admittedly the incident was took place during covid 19. It is very much known to all the public that it was very difficult for common man to go to any hospital for any normal or simple treatment other than covid 19 treatment, since all the hospitals are filled up with covid 19 patients. Due to lock down it was very difficult to get the vehicles for hire to reach the hospital. Admittedly the incident happened in the evening 6.30 pm on 13.06.2020. The complainant was alone and the OP2 sent back the complainant by simply putting the adhesive tape on the broken lip. The conduct of the OP2 clearly discloses that his approach is very casual. Due to the casual approach of the OP2 towards the patient the complainant was made to suffer anxiety and pain and agony. The complainant was exposed to face several problems in view of the negligent and casual attitude of the OP2."
The Commission opined that the doctor had a casual approach and negligent attitude in treating the wound and noted,
"The complainant would not have got the bleeding problem if the wound is stitched. The medical records of the other hospitals produced by the complainant as per Ex.P10 the prescription issued by the specialist hospital clearly discloses that the wound was dressed and stitching was done. When the other doctors who have seen the complainant has clearly given their opinion that the wound is deep and it needs stitching. Then the OP2 would have taken the decision to stitch the wound. The casual approach of OP2 made the complainant to suffer all these problems and she was made to run from one hospital to other hospital during covid 19 lock down period by living her small children with her neighbors in the late night. Under these circumstances the complainant has clearly established the casual approach and negligent attitude of the OP2 in treating the wound which was caused during the dental procedure."
Directing the doctor to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 as legal expenses to the complainant, the consumer court ordered, "The complainant would have spent substantial amount to go to the hospitals for stitching her upper lip and for other treatment and for medicine. She has not produced any medical bills or having taken the medicines after she suffered the injury. Under these circumstances, taking into consideration the causal approach of the OP2 and the mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant we feel it is necessary to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Hence we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/consumer-court-negligence-lip-cut-213158.pdf
