Bengaluru: For KN Srinivasa, 59, a visit to a dental clinic for a damaged tooth ended with the loss of another tooth he depended on for chewing, two failed implants, and years of pain. The ordeal has now culminated in the III additional Bengaluru Urban district consumer disputes redressal commission directing the clinic to pay him Rs 23,000 as compensation and refund.
The Dental Ordeal Begins
The saga began in January 2023, when Srinivasa, a Thyagarajanagar resident, visited Partha Dental Clinic in Jayanagar seeking treatment for a damaged last-but-one molar tooth. He was advised to undergo dental implantation and paid Rs 29,000 as an advance. On February 28, 2023, he was called for preliminary diagnostic procedures, including X-ray imaging, oral scanning, and clinical assessment of bone condition, for which he paid a consultation fee. On March 23, he paid Rs 8,000 towards a proposed prosthetic cap and zirconia crown.
First Implantation Failure
In April 2023, the first implantation procedure was performed but it failed. Srinivasa was advised to revisit after the surgical site healed for reimplantation. During the healing period from April 2023 to November 2023, he suffered continuous pain and damage to the adjacent tooth.
Second Implantation and Further Complications
In November 2023, Srinivasa was advised to undergo implantation for a second time in February 2024. However, during the second implantation procedure, the clinic, without his consent, removed an adjacent supporting tooth that he used for chewing food. The second implantation also failed. The clinic then advised him to undergo implantation for a third time, which Srinivasa refused in view of the repeated failures. He sought a refund along with his medical records, which the clinic refused.
Consumer Complaint Filed
Srinivasa alleged that the clinic's actions amounted to gross negligence and deficiency in service. On February 13, 2026, he obtained an independent dental opinion confirming that the implantation failures were attributable to improper placement and negligent execution of the procedures by the clinic. He filed a consumer complaint on March 4, 2026, seeking a refund of Rs 31,498 with interest at 16% per annum. Since there was a delay of more than 300 days in filing the complaint, he also filed an application for condonation of delay, which the commission allowed.
Clinic Absent Throughout Proceedings
Despite being served notice, the clinic remained absent throughout the proceedings. The commission drew an adverse inference against the clinic on this account, even as Srinivasa produced payment receipts for Rs 8,498 as documentary evidence, along with the independent dental opinion dated February 13, 2026.
Compensation and Refund Ordered
While Srinivasa claimed a total refund of Rs 37,498, apart from compensation of Rs 10 lakh towards medical negligence and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, the commission noted that bills were produced only for Rs 8,498. It accordingly restricted the refund to Rs 8,000. Observing that the clinic's repeated failed procedures amounted to negligence, the commission bench on May 21 ordered a compensation of Rs 5,000 towards the suffering undergone by the complainant, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total relief to Rs 23,000.
