Root Canal Procedure Without Proper Communication Led to Dispute
New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), South Delhi, has directed Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital and its treating dentist to pay ₹15,000 compensation for deficiency in service during a root canal procedure performed on a patient in December 2020.
The Commission found lapses in patient communication, procedural clarity, and documentation while holding both the hospital and the dentist jointly responsible.
Patient Alleges Treatment Without Consent and Improper Procedure
According to the complaint, the patient booked an appointment with Dr. Gulati at Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital on December 29, 2020, for tooth pain and paid ₹8,210 for the prescribed treatment.
She alleged that the hospital performed dental procedures, including root canal treatment, without informing or obtaining her consent for the same.
Despite taking prescribed medicines for three days, the patient said she experienced unbearable pain and later consulted another dentist, Dr. Kaushish, who allegedly found incomplete treatment and procedural discrepancies.
Claims of Overbilling and Lack of Facilities
The complainant further alleged overbilling, lack of proper dental equipment, and violation of COVID-19 protocols at the hospital.
When she confronted the first doctor about the discrepancies, she was allegedly told that “overbilling was common across hospitals to meet expenses.”
She also claimed that cotton piping was left inside her tooth, which was later removed by the second doctor during a follow-up X-ray in September 2021.
Complainant Seeks ₹3 Lakh Compensation for Negligence
In her plea, the complainant demanded reimbursement of ₹28,810 in treatment expenses with 18% interest, ₹3 lakh for medical negligence and unfair trade practice, ₹2 lakh for mental agony, and ₹88,000 for legal costs.
The hospital, however, contended that the treating doctor was not a regular employee and that dental procedures often require multiple sittings, with full payment taken in advance for patient convenience.
Hospital Denies Allegations, Cites Incomplete Course of Treatment
The hospital’s counsel argued that the complainant left the treatment midway and visited another dentist before the completion of her course.
It maintained that no negligence occurred, as the patient had been charged for procedures including restoration, flap surgery, root canal, and radiology, which were duly initiated as per protocol.
Commission Observes Poor Communication and Incomplete Follow-Up
After reviewing the evidence, the Commission observed that the treating dentist failed to communicate the need for follow-up visits or the completion timeline.
It stated,
“The dental doctor failed to explain the appropriate procedure and time required. The prescription does not indicate whether the treatment needed more sittings or was complete in one sitting. The complainant was not informed of the next visit for permanent filling and capping.”
The panel noted that even though the patient’s pain persisted, she was not adequately guided about follow-up care, leading to further complications.
Hospital Also Held Liable for Booking and Payment Handling
The DCDRC held that Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital could not absolve itself by claiming that the dentist was not its regular staff member.
“The hospital booked the appointment, accepted payment, and facilitated the treatment. Therefore, it cannot wash its hands of the liability,” the Commission stated.
Verdict: ₹15,000 Compensation Within 3 Months
Concluding that both the hospital and the dentist were jointly and severally liable, the Commission ordered them to pay ₹15,000 within three months, failing which the amount would carry 5% annual interest until realization.
The order reinforces the consumer’s right to informed consent and transparent communication in medical and dental care services.
