Holding a dentist liable for deficiency in service, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an order directing him to pay Rs 3.15 lakh to a woman for fitting her with “defective dentures” worth Rs 2.45.President Justice G Radha Rani and member RS Rajeshree were hearing an appeal filed by the dentist against the order of the district commission that held him at fault for giving inadequate treatment to the woman by removing all her teeth and implanting defective dentures.“Though the appellant (dentist) charged Rs 2.45 lakh for providing four implants and a complete denture but failed to provide the implants as promised by him and used an inferior material despite charging her superior treatment, and improperly fitted the same, which resulted in fracture of the lower denture within a period of eight months. This evidence sufficiently proves the deficiency in service rendered by the appellant,” the July 7 order read.In 2014, the woman approached the dentist, complaining of pain in the left upper back tooth region. It was stated that the dentist suggested removal of wisdom teeth. Since the pain continued, it was alleged that the dentist advised further treatment in a phased manner. In the first phase, he allegedly removed the wisdom teeth and cleaned the remaining teeth. In the second phase, he gave root canal treatment, and in the third phase, he suggested taking out two lower teeth and three upper teeth from different places and arranging bridges.Also read | Cold storage sells farmer’s 48,000 kg carrots without consent, ordered to pay Rs 31.5 lakhAfter a few months of the treatment, when the woman complained of repeated pain, it came on record that the dentist advised removal of all the teeth and to go for dentures. The woman alleged that he later removed all the her teeth and implanted allegedly defective dentures. According to the woman, she was not comfortable with the dentures as they were more painful, and she had stopped taking solid food and started eating liquid or semi-liquid food, which led to weight loss and other health issues.The woman alleged that on January 27, 2018, the dentist advised fixing implants in her lower and upper jaws to support permanent dentures and allegedly asked for Rs 2.45 lakh for the procedure with a “lifetime guarantee” for the implants and ten years for the “high-quality” dentures. The woman paid the sum in advance in two installments. It came on record that the dentist took eight months to complete the procedure, and since September 2018, the woman was carefully using the new dentures.The woman claimed that her dentures, which were fitted on the lower jaw, broke after she was chewing a chapati in April, 2019. The next day, when she went to the dentist with the broken denture, she understood that she was not given a permanent denture but a plastic one. The woman then demanded fixing of permanent dentures, but the dentist allegedly refused and said that he would replace the broken lower denture at an additional cost of Rs 20,000. The woman alleged that the dentist demanded an additional amount of Rs 1.5 lakh for permanent dentures.Story continues below this adOn May 3, 2019, the woman stated that she took a second opinion from a doctor who confirmed that the broken denture was temporary and was also defective in design. It was alleged that the doctor offered treatment with two more implants and a permanent denture for Rs 1 lakh. After the second doctor treated the woman, she filed a consumer complaint with the district consumer commission claiming Rs 18 lakh as compensation along with Rs 10,000 as costs. The district consumer commission had awarded a payout of Rs 4.15 lakh to the women.Inadequate treatmentThe state commission noted that the dentist, had failed to provide the promised permanent solution and he himself considered the previous treatment as inadequate and hence proposed to provide permanent denture for an extra amount. The commission also noted that the failure of the dentures was proved by the fact that the dentist did not contest the proceedings or produce the treatment records explaining why further implants were required.The state commission also observed that the expert opinion report proved that the broken denture did not have any metal reinforcement and that its quality was also questionable. According to the commission, the dentist had promised to provide four implants but failed to provide two implants in the lower jaw because of which the woman had to approach another doctor for treatment.Also read | Man wins Rs 50,000 over granddaughter’s ‘loss of appearance’ due to ‘defective haircut’The state commission held the dentist responsible for the treatment given and for the dentures supplied to the patient. The commission further said, “Even if negligence is not established to the standard required for professional misconduct, the failure to provide the treatment contracted for or providing a prosthesis that fails prematurely because of defective design, or workmanship would still amount to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.”Story continues below this adAccordingly, the state commission upheld the order of the district commission and directed the dentist to refund Rs 2.45 lakh to the woman along with Rs 20,000 as litigation costs. However, the state commission reduced the compensation given for mental agony from Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 50,000 as there was no evidence to show that the woman was the director of a company, was not able to attend any board meetings and that she faced any financial loss.‘Hospital not attached’Advocate K Visweswara Rao, appearing for the dentist, argued that the expert opinion report considered by the district commission did not have the details of the patient and no findings, description, or photograph of the examined denture was recorded.It was contended that the woman had not attached the hospital concerned as a party in the case and that the material of the dentures was not manufactured by the dentist and hence the woman should have attached the manufacturer of the denture as well. It was further submitted that, that no evidence was given to show that she was the director of a company and missed the board meetings.TakeawayThe ruling establishes the obligation of companies and professionals to ensure proper services and that the concerns of the consumers must not be ignored, causing them unnecessary inconvenience. For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states and union territories (Telangana: 1800-4250-0333) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.