Chennai Dentist Found Guilty of Negligence
Commission Orders Compensation
The Chennai North District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) has held a dentist accountable for professional negligence after the wrong tooth was extracted from a patient. The commission mandated the dentist to compensate the patient with Rs 2.05 lakh.
Details of the Case
The commission determined that the dentist failed to adhere to the treatment plan, which explicitly indicated the removal of a specific milk tooth. The complainant initially sought assistance from an online orthodontic service in January 2025 to address misaligned teeth, paying Rs 60,000 for the service. Following this, an appointment was scheduled for a doorstep scanning and verification process.
The patient was subsequently instructed to obtain an X-ray from a local dental clinic, where it was advised that certain milk teeth needed to be removed prior to fitting braces. In February, after receiving directives from the orthodontic company, a dentist located in Anna Nagar extracted a tooth and issued a prescription detailing the history of the removed teeth.
Miscommunication and Errors
According to reports from TOI, after the X-rays were reviewed, the patient received written and WhatsApp communications advising the extraction of milk tooth No. 53. However, an email from the orthodontic company later led to an appointment with another dentist. This dentist discovered that a permanent tooth had been removed instead.
Subsequently, the patient revisited the original dentist to address the negligence regarding the extraction of the incorrect tooth. The complainant alleged that this error resulted in pain, bleeding, nerve injury, psychological distress, and potential future treatments such as a root canal or implant, in addition to the misalignment of remaining teeth.
Dentist’s Defense and Commission’s Findings
The dentist contended that the extracted tooth was a palatally placed permanent lateral incisor causing discomfort, arguing that the prescription note referencing the milk tooth was merely a preliminary record of the patient’s issue. However, the commission dismissed this defense, citing the lack of clinical records that would justify the decision to extract a different tooth.
The District Consumer Court, led by President D. Gopinath, noted that the dentist had recorded in the prescription that the “patient wants to get her milk tooth removed.” Despite this notation, the dentist proceeded with the extraction of a permanent tooth, as evidenced by their own records from February.
Ruling and Compensation Details
As a result of these findings, the commission upheld the complaint against the dentist, ordering a payment of Rs 2 lakh for medical negligence, which includes a refund and other expenses for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Additionally, the District Consumer Court instructed the dentist to pay Rs 5,000 towards the cost of the complaint within a two-month period.