A consumer court in Chennai has held a private dental clinic accountable for a serious case of medical negligence. The clinic extracted a permanent tooth from a young woman when the treatment plan specifically called for the removal of a milk tooth. This error occurred during preparatory work for orthodontic braces.
The Treatment Plan and the Costly Mistake
The case involved a 21-year-old resident of Arumbakkam, N Gayathri. In early January 2025, she sought services from Toothsi, an online orthodontic platform, to correct her misaligned teeth. She paid ₹60,000 for initial scans and processing. After her X-rays were reviewed, she received clear written instructions, including via WhatsApp messages, to extract milk tooth number 53.
Following this advice, Gayathri visited Oyster Dental Care in Anna Nagar on February 3, 2025. The clinic charged her ₹800 and proceeded with a tooth extraction. However, when she returned in April to finally get her braces fitted, she received shocking news. The clinic had removed a permanent tooth, not the designated milk tooth.
Clinic's Defense Rejected by Consumer Commission
During the proceedings at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Chennai North), the dentist from the clinic presented a defense. They argued that the extracted tooth was a permanently placed lateral incisor positioned towards the palate, which was causing discomfort. The dentist claimed the prescription note mentioning the milk tooth was merely a preliminary record of the patient's initial complaint.
The Commission firmly rejected this argument. It noted a critical flaw: the clinic failed to provide any clinical records or documentation to justify the decision to deviate from the approved treatment plan and extract a different tooth. The absence of this evidence proved decisive in establishing negligence.
Substantial Compensation Awarded to the Victim
Ruling in favor of the complainant, the consumer court ordered the dentist to pay ₹2,00,000 as compensation for the medical negligence and the resulting physical and mental distress. Additionally, the clinic must pay ₹5,000 to cover litigation costs incurred by Gayathri.
This verdict underscores the importance of healthcare providers adhering strictly to agreed-upon treatment plans. It also highlights the accountability mechanisms available to patients through consumer courts when such protocols are breached, leading to irreversible harm like the loss of a permanent tooth.
