Copyright medicaldialogues
New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), South Delhi, has imposed a compensation of Rs 15,000 on Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital and its treating dentist for deficiency in service during a root canal procedure performed on a patient.The history of the case goes back to 2020, when the complainant booked an appointment with Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital to consult Dr. Gulati for her tooth pain. As per the complaint, the appointment was booked for 29.12.2020 at 2 PM, and she paid consultation fees. After the check-up, the treating doctor directed the complainant to deposit the requisite charges to start the treatment. It was alleged that the hospital charged Rs 8,210 as per the treatment advised by the treating hospital. The hospital took X-ray of the mouth and provided some treatment to the patient, allegedly without informing and taking her consent for the procedure/line of treatment.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...
