'Negligent’ dentist asked to pay Rs 1 lakh
9 Aug 2012 8:16 AM IST
A city dentist has been directed by a district consumer forum here to pay Rs one lakh to a patient as damages for triggering medical complications by operating upon him without ascertaining his blood sugar, believing his word that it was normal.
‘Contributory negligence on the part of patient is no defence though it is a circumstance which can be taken into account in determining the quantum of compensation,’ the forum pointed out to Dr Vaneet Kakar who had contended that he had performed the surgery after his patient and complainant Fateh Singh had assured that his sugar level was under control.
The North District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Dr Kakar negligent for not getting the blood sugar level of Singh checked despite having been informed by him that he was a diabetic, and instead relied on his word that his sugar level was under control.
‘In our opinion, once the patient (Singh) had informed opposite party (Dr Kakar) that he was suffering from diabetes, it was sufficient for the opposite party to be on guard in handling the case. It was his duty to ask the complainant (Singh) to go for blood sugar test. In case report had suggested that it was on higher side, it was his duty to take precaution before going for root canal treatment on the complainant. There may be dereliction on the part of the complainant, but it does not absolve the opposite party of his negligence,’ the bench presided by Babu Lal said.
Singh in his complaint had alleged that Dr Kakar had not checked his blood sugar prior to the dental surgery and due to his high sugar level, the operated area developed pus which infected his throat, which, in turn, required urgent surgery costing Rs 70,000.
He had also alleged that he had informed Dr Kakar that he was a diabetic but the dentist had said that won’t affect the surgical procedure.
Kakar in his defence had contended that he had performed the surgery as Singh had assured that his blood sugar was under control.
The bench also comprising members B R Sharma and Shahina said it was the ‘bounden duty’ of the dentist to make sure that his patient underwent all tests.
Before an operation so that there are no problems post-surgery. ‘In our opinion, when the procedure adopted for treatment in any medical condition is a surgery, it is bounden duty of the physician or the surgeon to invariably go for the test of the patient on all the material medical aspects which may have aggravated the effect in post-surgery period,’ the bench said.
The forum also directed the dentist to pay Singh Rs 70,000 which cost him for throat surgery, along with another Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5000 as litigation cost.
Fateh Singh had said he had consulted Dr Vaneet Kakar for treatment on 15 February 2006, who told him that his teeth were shortening and required immediate treatment by way of a surgery.
Singh added that after the surgery, he, however, developed pain in his throat for which he visited the dentist several times but each time Kakar only prescribed some medicines and injections without checking the problem.
On the night of 10 March 2006 when he was rushed to a nearby nursing home after the pain increased, it was found that he had a throat infection as a result of pus formation in the operated area, Singh had said.
‘Contributory negligence on the part of patient is no defence though it is a circumstance which can be taken into account in determining the quantum of compensation,’ the forum pointed out to Dr Vaneet Kakar who had contended that he had performed the surgery after his patient and complainant Fateh Singh had assured that his sugar level was under control.
The North District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held Dr Kakar negligent for not getting the blood sugar level of Singh checked despite having been informed by him that he was a diabetic, and instead relied on his word that his sugar level was under control.
‘In our opinion, once the patient (Singh) had informed opposite party (Dr Kakar) that he was suffering from diabetes, it was sufficient for the opposite party to be on guard in handling the case. It was his duty to ask the complainant (Singh) to go for blood sugar test. In case report had suggested that it was on higher side, it was his duty to take precaution before going for root canal treatment on the complainant. There may be dereliction on the part of the complainant, but it does not absolve the opposite party of his negligence,’ the bench presided by Babu Lal said.
Singh in his complaint had alleged that Dr Kakar had not checked his blood sugar prior to the dental surgery and due to his high sugar level, the operated area developed pus which infected his throat, which, in turn, required urgent surgery costing Rs 70,000.
He had also alleged that he had informed Dr Kakar that he was a diabetic but the dentist had said that won’t affect the surgical procedure.
Kakar in his defence had contended that he had performed the surgery as Singh had assured that his blood sugar was under control.
The bench also comprising members B R Sharma and Shahina said it was the ‘bounden duty’ of the dentist to make sure that his patient underwent all tests.
Before an operation so that there are no problems post-surgery. ‘In our opinion, when the procedure adopted for treatment in any medical condition is a surgery, it is bounden duty of the physician or the surgeon to invariably go for the test of the patient on all the material medical aspects which may have aggravated the effect in post-surgery period,’ the bench said.
The forum also directed the dentist to pay Singh Rs 70,000 which cost him for throat surgery, along with another Rs 25,000 as compensation and Rs 5000 as litigation cost.
Fateh Singh had said he had consulted Dr Vaneet Kakar for treatment on 15 February 2006, who told him that his teeth were shortening and required immediate treatment by way of a surgery.
Singh added that after the surgery, he, however, developed pain in his throat for which he visited the dentist several times but each time Kakar only prescribed some medicines and injections without checking the problem.
On the night of 10 March 2006 when he was rushed to a nearby nursing home after the pain increased, it was found that he had a throat infection as a result of pus formation in the operated area, Singh had said.
Next Story
