Hospital fined 5 lakh ` for disfiguring teeth

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered a dental hospital in the city to pay `5 lakh as compensation to a patient for disfiguring her teeth.

Overturning the decision of a district forum, the State Commission in its recent order (FA No 126/2012) directed Sravani Super Specialty Dental Hospital, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad, owned by Dr Karthik Reddy, to pay `5 lakh to Ms T. Anitha, a lecturer, for “gross negligence”, “rashness” and “recklessness” with which the hospital treated her, resulting in lifelong injury and disfiguration of the teeth. The hospital has appealed against the ruling.

The inquiry committee of the State Commission found that Ms Anitha’s three teeth were ground beyond requirement and the tooth structure was totally damaged during the course of treatment.

Ms Anitha told this correspondent that the treatment spanned several months in 2008.

Patient T. Anitha, whose teeth are now disfigured for life due to negligence on the part of Sravani Super Specialty Dental Hospital, said, “Root canal treatment was done unnecessarily. I spent at least `30,000 towards treatment,” said.

“Worse, I suffered immense physical and mental agony. I was unable to speak properly and went into depression,” she said. Ms Anitha had filed a complaint seeking `20 lakh for the mental agony.

A complaint that Ms Anitha had filed with the Nallakunta police (crime no. 228/08 on October 8, 2008) is pending. She had fled the complaint under IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) and 338 (causing grievous hurt) against the hospital.

Dr Karthik Reddy denied any negligence on the part of the hospital and has approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which is yet to list the matter. Faulting the forum’s order, Dr Reddy contended that Dr Annapurna from the Government Dental College who filed a report for the forum “isn’t a specialist” on RCT (root canal treatment). “But her report was taken into consideration (by the State Commission) while passing the order.” “We had submitted a report to the Director of Medical Education and the enquiry committee, which showed that there was no negligence. But it was not taken into account,” Dr Reddy said.

Dr Shannu Kumar, a consultant of Sravani Hospital, had filed a third party affidavit in the District Consumer Redressal Forum stating that he had performed the RCT on Ms Anitha on July 7, 2008.

Earlier, on December 30, 2011, the District Committee Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum 2 had stated in its order that complainant couldn’t make a case of medical negligence. It said the opinion of the expert committee supported the hospital’s stand.

Overturning the District Forum’s decision, the state commission, while ordering the `5lakh compensation, directed that it be paid with nine per cent interest per annum from the date of complaint (July 2009). It directed the hospital to pay `10,000 towards cost of complaint and appeal.