The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission has upheld a compensation award of Rs 6.32 lakh against a Navi Mumbai dental clinic and a consulting dentist, ruling that improper procedures and unjustified treatments amounted to medical negligence and service deficiency.
The state panel dismissed an appeal filed by Sabka Dentist and the treating practitioner against an October 20, 2022 verdict by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thane. Presiding President Justice S P Tavade and member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan affirmed the lower tribunal’s order, directing the clinic and dentist to pay Rs 4.32 lakh toward corrective medical expenses and Rs 2 lakh for mental agony and legal costs. The payout carries an annual interest rate of 12 percent calculated from October 20, 2022, with a 45-day deadline for compliance set from August 7.
Failure To Justify Invasive Root Canal Procedures
The dispute originated from treatments administered between July 21, 2018, and January 30, 2019. The patient originally sought minor filling corrections and aesthetic smile design at the facility. However, she was subsequently advised to undergo root canal therapy across nine teeth followed by full-coverage restorations.
In its August 7 ruling, the state commission highlighted that the clinic failed to present verified pre-treatment documentation or radiographs demonstrating the clinical necessity of performing root canals on nine teeth. The panel determined that performing invasive pulp removal without prior diagnostic imaging to prove its necessity constituted a failure to maintain the standard duty of care required of medical professionals.
Flawed Crown Preparation And Warranty Breaches
An independent evaluation from a separate dental clinic, along with corrective treatment records, revealed that the practitioners executed an excessive and unnatural reduction of the patient’s natural tooth height during crown preparation. The tribunal found that this structural alteration compromised mechanical retention, directly causing the fitted crowns to fracture and repeatedly dislodge within a year.
The patient had selected zirconia crowns costing approximately Rs 1.75 lakh, which were represented as carrying a 15-year warranty. When the crowns failed, the clinic refused to honor the warranty for repair or replacement. Furthermore, six guarantee cards issued to the woman contained the personal details of other patients. The commission concluded that refusing warranty services during the coverage period and distributing third-party guarantee cards constituted a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Defense Arguments Rejected By Consumer Commission
In their defense, the clinic and consulting dentist argued that all procedures adhered to accepted diagnosis plans, signed consent forms, and standard clinical protocols, with X-rays taken throughout the root canal stages. The dentist asserted that tooth height evaluation is a subjective clinical decision and contended that warranty coverage applied strictly to the dental cap rather than the underlying tooth structure.
The defense also stated that the patient had existing fractured restorations in four teeth, experienced post-treatment sensitivity, missed scheduled follow-up visits, and experienced dislodgement in only one of 17 crowns due to an underlying tooth fracture.
The state commission rejected these arguments, finding no error in the district forum’s original judgment and confirming full liability for the compensation amount.
