Dentist-Defective dentures-Refund ordered- The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum to refund Rs. 1,500/charged for making a dentureset by the dentist as the said denture was not fitting properly. [Dr. R.C. Singhal v. Smt. Urmila Mathur, Appeal No. 1334/Cs of 1992, decided on 11.11.1994 (UP SCDRC) (unreported).]

Dentist-Over-bleeding and headache following tooth extraction-No negligence-The complainant went to Dr. G. Panavadhyani, a dentist for extraction of his tooth, following which he had over-bleeding and headache. He alleged that the dentist extracted his tooth without taking BP and other precautions, due to which he had suffered. The State Commission came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency on part of the dentist on 3 counts: whereas the complainant was known hypertensive, he deposed before the commission that he had not taken any medicine for blood pressure before extraction. The opposite party was consistent in his averments that blood pressure was taken and was found to be 130/90; the complainant did not adduce adequate evidence to show that he went along with his wife to the opposite party on 15.12.91 complaining about the over-bleeding and that the opposite party sent them back home without finding out the reason for the over bleeding and curing it there was no evidence to link the headache with the extraction; from the medical certificate of Ashok Nursing Home, where the complainant was admitted on 15.12.91, there was no complaint of headache-then and headache was noticed only on 19..12.91. There was thus a gap of time between extraction and development of headache; further, the Discharge Summary Slip of Sri Balaji Hospital indicated that the headache was probably due to the haemorrhage and hypertension. It was a case of alcohol dependence with organic brain syndrome.

The National Commission upheld the finding of the State Commission and dismissed the appeal. [S.B. Tiwari v. Dr. G. Panavadhyani, 1996 (1) CPJ 301 (NCDRC).]

Dentist-Defective artificial tooth of denture-Replacement by experienced surgeon-Having found unsuitable, refixation by another surgeon after about 10 years-Denture made by first surgeon could be made suitable by grinding, but complainant disagreed-No deficiency in service-The 1st opposite party is a very experienced dental surgeon with a Post Graduate qualification. He had fixed the denture for the complainant during 1986 and the complainant was satisfied with the said service. It is only natural that when some problem arose regarding the artificial teeth fixed about 10 years back the complainant approached the same doctor. It is seen from the deposition of P .W .1 that the complainant did not show the artificial teeth fixed by the opposite parties to the witness. Nor is there anything in his evidence to show that the complainant mentioned about his having approached the opposite parties seeking their services. It is only during his examination before the Forum that he is confronted with the denture made for him by the opposite parties.

If the earlier denture was not suitable or giving pain, the complainant would have mentioned this to P .W. land would have sought his advice. This is normal human nature. In this case the complainant purposely withheld the information from P .W .1 The object can only be to establish that the earlier denture was defective because of which he had to approach another dentist and at additional cost fix another denture and then alleged deficiency of service on the opposite parties. In any event there is nothing in the evidence to conclude that the service of the opposite party was deficient. [Dr. G. Murali v. Moratkal Kalarikkal Janardhanan, 1999 (2) CPR 14 (Ker. SCDRC)]

Dentist-Detachment of needle from syringe and slipping into throat- Efforts to take it out failing-Needle further slips to stomach- Taking it out from intestine by surgery and ultimate malady to patient-Negligence held-Compensation of Rs. 1,00,200/- and costs Rs. 3,000/- awarded-The complainant, suffering from some dental problem, was suggested by the opposite party, the extraction of right molar of his lower jaw, and after extraction there was bleeding in the mouth. The opposite party having felt that it was necessary to irrigate the mouth to clean the socket, put the syringe into the mouth of the complainant intending to give an injection but the needle of the syringe got detached and slipped into the throat. Attempts to get the needle out failed, but instead the needle went into the stomach, necessitating an operation. Held: It cannot be disputed that the needle got detached from the syringe. This, in itself, lends probability to the version of the complainant that opposite party did not property set in the needle to the syringe. When the same went into the mouth of the complainant, there was a heavy responsibility on the part of the opposite party to take all care and caution. He was expected to take all possible care, in the context of such anticipation. Opposite party has not come out with a precise statement as to why there was a detachment of the needle, if according to him, it did not happen in the way and manner as stated by the complainant. It is a case of 'res ipsa loquitur' (things speak for themselves). Thus, the Commission held that the OP did not exercise the care expected of him as a medical man, and there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of him. The Commission followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, AIR 1996 SC 550. [Amblappa v. Sriman D. Veerendra Heggade & Ors, 1999 (3) CPR 72 ( Ker. SCDRC)]

Dentist-Defective denture-Denture prepared by appellant becoming loose and coming out not only while eating but also while talking-Despite several requests appellant failing to rectify the defect-Complainant getting a new denture prepared from another dentist-Negligence held-Direction of District Forum to refund cost of denture together with Rs. 2,000 as compensation upheld by State Commission-The allegation of the complainant is that the denture prepared by the appellant was defective and the same was so loose that not only during eating but even while talking the same used to come out. The complainant had to get another denture prepared from another doctor after paying Rs. 5,000. It does not appeal to reason why a consumer would level false allegation and would go to the extent of having got prepared a new denture from another dentist.

The relief given by the District Forum to the complainant appears to be just and adequate. [(Dr). K.C. Nasa v. Sahib ChandShanna, 2003 (6) CLD 26: 2003 (3) CPR 509: 2003 (3) CPJ 622 (Del. SCDRC)]

Foreign Cases

Dentist-Hypertensive case-Anaesthetic used causing stroke-Held negligent-A dental patient had extremely severe hypertension for which her physician was treating her. Prior to injecting a local anaesthetic the dentist did not ask any questions about her physical condition or inquire about medication she was taking. The substance, which he used to deaden patients' mouth specifically and clearly stated that under no circumstances should it be used for hypertensive patients. She got up from the chair after her tooth was filled and collapsed on the floor with a stroke. The dentist was liable. [Sanzari >v. Rosenfeld, 167 A 2d 625, NJ 1961.]

Dentist-Consent for pulling 11 teeth-27 pulled-Held liable for bat- tery-A patient was referred by his dentist to an oral surgeon. While waiting in the waiting room, and before ever seeing the surgeon, he was given a surgical consent form

to sign which gave the surgeon authority to do whatever procedure he thought best. When he saw the surgeon it was agreed that 11 teeth would be pulled. He went to the ~ hospital, signed another general consent, and while he was under general anaesthesia, , the surgeon pulled 27 teeth. The court upheld his action for battery as to the 16 teeth for I which no consent had been obtained. v. Belinfante, 218 SE 2d 289, Ga 1975.] 13-18.8 Dentist-Removal of wisdom teeth-Permanent injury to lingual nerve-Causation-Lack of due care and skill-Held negligence- The plaintiff , went to a hospital to have three wisdom teeth removed. During the procedure she ;0; suffered permanent damage to the lingual nerve resulting in pain and loss of taste. It was held that the damage to the nerve was due to an avoidable manipulation of the retractor by lack of due care and skill on the part of the oral surgeon who allowed " the drill to cut into the lingual nerve. [Heath v. Burkshire Health Authority, [1991] [ 8 BMLR 98 QBD.]