Case against Docter dismissed. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (NORTH). Present: PRESIDENT: Thiru. D. GOPINATH, M.L., M.HR., MEMBER-I: TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E., MEMBER-II: THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA.,:
Date of Complaint: 21.02.2025
Date of Reservation: 25.09.2025
Date of Order: 11.11.2025
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (NORTH).
Present:
PRESIDENT: Thiru. D. GOPINATH, M.L., M.HR.,
MEMBER-I: TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,
MEMBER-II: THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA.,:
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO:58/2025
TUESDAY. THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025.
G.Saravanan,
Son of Grurusamy.
No. 2/48-A, II Main Road,
Kaviarasu Kannadasan Nagar,
Kodungaiyur, Chennai-600 118. …Complainant
VERSUS
Dr. Roshan Rayan,
Rayen Dental Care Center,
Rep. by Chief doctor in Dr.Roshan,
30/1, Red Bricks Leela Apartments,
Tank Bund Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 034. …Opposite Party
Counsel for Complainant: M/s. T.Karthikeyan
Counsel for Opposite Party: M/s. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi
On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we deliver the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Thiru.D.GOPINATH,M.L.,M.HR.,
INTRODUCTION:
(i). The Complainant has preferred this the instant complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging unfair trade practice / medical negligence leading to deficiency in service on the Opposite Party.
ii. Averments in the Complaint:
2. The complainant states that during covid period he had certain issues like continuous fever and went to Madurai Guru Hopsital. The complainant was informed that he was affected with Covid and the complainant was admitted as inpatient on 09.05.2021. Since the hospital was flooded with covid patients during the second cycle of Covid, the complainant did not ask for any clinical confirmation. The complainant was given only normal Dolo- 650 and two more tablets. On his request he got discharged on 17.05.2021 from Guru Hospital.
3. After discharge from the Guru hospital, the complainant had some nasal issues and for which he was admitted on 22.05.2021 at Harshini Multi Speciality Hospital, Madurai and underwent surgery. The complainant was discharged on 26.05.2021. Since the complainant had headache problem, he went to Madras ENT Research Foundation (P) Ltd (herein after referred to as MERF) on 02.08.2021. At that point of time, the complainant informed MERF doctor that one of the teeth on the left upper is shaking. The doctor then referred the complainant to the opposite party (herein after referred to as OP) by way of letter on 03.08.2021. The complainant approached the opposite party only for shake of one tooth on the left upper on 04.08.2021 only. At MERF, the black fungus found in the nasal portion was completely removed on 11.08.2021 by way of surgery.
4. The complainant submits that the opposite party informed him that he would fix permanent implant. Even in the letter issued by the MERF it was specifically mentioned that the complainant was affected with mucor mycosis (black fungus).Therefore, after knowing the problem of the complainant the oppos COMMISSIONOHENNA HORT referred to CUBE lab taking scan. The CUBE laboratory also took CBCT and submitted their report. Therefore, the opposite party was well aware of the cause of the problem. AT MERF itself some of the teeth and maxilla bone was removed by the opposite party during the time of surgery. Thereafter, after full removal of black fungus in the nasal region, the complainant went to the opposite party for fixation of permanent implant.
5. The complainant submits that on 04.08.2021 after the MERF surgery the opposite party started his treatment. Almost on alternate days, the complainant was called by the opposite party. Thereafter the opposite party provided a temporary denture to the complainant.
6. The complainant submits that he was admitted at Rajan Dental Institute. The complainant on 5.12.2021 and rod was fixed. On the same day the complainant was discharged. Though, the complainant had paid Rs. One lakh for the surgery the hospital authorities have demanded Rs.23,350/- during discharge. Since no other go, the complainant paid the fee demanded and got discharged. The complainant had also paid another Rs. 76,650/- to the opposite party immediately after the surgery at Rajan Dental Institute Pvt Ltd.
7. The complainant submits that after ten days from the date of fixing the steel rod, the food and liquids taken by the complainant came out through nose with great irritation and burning sensation, but the opposite party informed that after the heal of the wound the problem would get rectified. Later opposite party sealed the opening many stitches. Even then the problem was not rectified. The complainant suffered every time and he was inducted heavy local anesthesia. The opposite party then again suggested me for plastic surgery and the complainant was again admitted at Rajan Dental Institute on 12.10.2022. The opposite party has received NORTH various payments in between for the treatment and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 13.12.2022. Even after the plastic surgery the problem was not rectified and the complainant could not take food and liquids till date. The complainant is still suffering with this problem till date as the rod was negligently implanted. Hence the complainant suffered huge pain.
8. The steel implant was abnormal in size and the excess steel rod is still protruding outside and thereby gives continuous pain to the complainant till date. The opposite party has miserably failed in his treatment because of his wrong diagnosis and negligent, careless treatment. On 02.02.2023 the opposite party hit the rod with his instrument and caused heavy bleeding and went out of the place leaving me abruptly saying he got scared. The complainant had sent many whatsap messages to the opposite party. The treatment went till April 2023. The opposite party has not issued any medical summary for the treatment and proper bills for the payments. The opposite party has received so far Rs. 7,50,000/-but issued bills for only Rs. 6,14,926/-. Leaving the payments made to Rajan Dental Institute Pvt. Ltd.
9. The Opposite Party is specialist only in child Dental and full knowledge to these sort of treatments. The Anna Nagar Clinic of the OP clearly admits that he is specialised in child Dental care. The complainant was not provided with permanent implant and a formal temporary denture alone was provided for the payment of Rs.7.5 lakhs. It is not only the complainant suffered but the entire family of the complaint put to suffer till date. Per day the travel expenses would exceed Rs.2,000/-. At least the complainant would have visited the opposite party not less than 50 times.
Infact the opposite party has played with the life of the complainant ve timethe opposite party would only demand money on the assurance that he would cure all the problems. Inspite of receiving Rs.7,50,000/- to provide permanent implant like natural teeth, the opposite party has provided only a formal Denture which would cost less than Rs.10,000/-. The complainant later filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police which was referred to Nungambakkam PS. There also due to influence of the opposite party, the inspector has not taken any action for criminal negligence of the Opposite Party but advised to claim compensation before the Consumer Forum. The complainant lodged complaint to the Dental Council and Medical Council. During enquiry the Opposite party furnished fabricated document to mislead the enquiry.
11. The opposite party issued a legal notice dated 25.09.2023 for defamation, and the complainant issued a reply notice dated 07.11.2023. The opposite party has committed deficiency in service due to his wrong negligent careless treatment. Hence the arrival of the complaint.
In support of the Complaint, Exhibits A-1 to A27 has been marked on the side of the Complainant.
III. Written Version by the Opposite Party is as follows:
12. The opposite party is a qualified, renowned and reputed dentist running a dental clinic under the name M/s. Rayen Dental Care Centre in the above said address for more than 15 years. He is a consultant in many reputed hospitals. For his excellence in service he has won multiple awards and recognition from various dental institutions across the country including the ‘Famdent Excellence Award’. He serves as Adjunct Faculty at Sri Ramachandra Medical College, Porur, Chennai.
13.The opposite party denies that the complainant was referred to the opposite NOnly for the sake of one tooth. The complainant has approached the opposite party with complications of post-covid osteomyelitis (bone infection) of upper jaw due to Mucormycosis (Black Fungus) in August 2021, having been referred for an opinion on whether any dental involvement is required in prosthetic reconstruction by one Dr. Mohan Kameswaran of Madras ENT Research Foundation (MERF). Mucormycosis is a severe fungal infection, often referred to as “black fungus, that can occur in people who are severely ill or have weakened immune systems, due to diabetes, old age or other associated medical condition especially after COVID-19.
14. Hence performing the surgery at MERF by the team of doctors was a lifesaving one to reduce the complications of the complainant. On intra-oral examination, multiple mobile teeth and diffused mucosal swelling (wide spread inflammation and fluid build-up) were evident on the maxilla (upper jaw bone). Pre-operative CBCT (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) indicated Mucormycosis of facial bones of nasal cavity and maxilla. Hence the surgery was felt necessary.
15. Post-surgery revealed satisfactory healing of the maxillary flap with very minimal Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue). Surgical closure of Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) under local anaesthesia as an outpatient procedure was performed immediately. The complainant was very well informed about the nature of the outcome of the procedure under guarded prognosis. Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) persisted after the procedure which is an abnormal connection between oral cavity and maxillary sinus often occurring after a surgical procedure especially involving maxillary teeth or maxilla. The patient has undergone maxillectomy. Hence Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) was inevitable. Furthermore, the Mucormy10 * has the feature of producing avascular necrosis and compensated which are consequences of the disease itself and cannot be attributed to the negligence of the treating doctor or the surgeon.
16. The opposite party further state that the opposite party was only one of the consultants of the team of doctors who treated the complainant at MERF. The concerned surgery was not performed by the opposite party. It was performed by a team of surgeon at MERF. But the MERF institution and doctors have not been arrayed as an Opposite Party by the complainant.
17. The opposite party denies that they started the treatment for fixing the implant on 04.08.2021. Post MERF surgery, only after the healing period of more than 4 months, implant procedure was done at the Rajan Dental Institute. Initially temporary dentures were given to aid the healing process. 3 weeks after the surgery, interim obturator with acrylic teeth was provided for masticatory function as well as to seal the Oro-antral communication. The implantation procedure was done in December, 2021 only because the complainant insisted on a better prosthesis. So a CBCT was taken and Zygomatic implant was done under general anaesthesia with the written informed consent. A zygomatic implant is a long dental implant that’s anchored into the cheekbone. It’s used to treat severe bone loss in the upper jaw. With proper care, zygomatic implants can last a lifetime. The surgery to remove the black fungus at MERF involved removal of the maxillary bone of the jaw. In order to support the denture and proper functioning of the jaw, the implantation of the zygomatic implant was necessary.
18. The healing of the disease was constantly and periodically reviewed. After waiting for 3 months for the implants to osseointegrate and heal, a fixed implant supported, denture was given to the complainant to aid eating, drinking and other processes, The complainant was informed about the successful treatment and the complainant was also satisfied with the treatment at the time. The opposite party also denied that the opposite party has demanded money (Rs.23,350/-) for discharge even after the payment of Rs.1 lakh for surgery.
19. The steel implant was abnormal in size and excess steel rod is still protruding is hereby denied. The permanent implant-supported overdenture and zygomatic implant are perfectly aligned to the complainant’s orofacial structure and the photographs are present with the opposite party. Any expert who have handled similar case will be able to give bias free judgment of that the treatment done by the opposite party. It is hereby denied that the Opposite Party hit the steel rod with his instrument. For dental, surgical, check-ups, implant planning and prosthetic rehabilitation, the complainant has spent about Rs.3,32,757/- for which invoices have been given. The opposite party states that limitation for filing any claim should be two years from the date of cause of action which is not the situation in this case. In limine the same this complaint should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
IV. To establish this case the Complainant had filed proof affidavit along with 27 documents and same were marked as Exhibits A1 to A27 were marked on his side. The opposite party had submitted proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B18 documents were marked on his side. Brief written arguments were filed by the complainant and opposite party.
V. LAW OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE:
In the case of Laxman Balkrishna Joshi (Dr) v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, reported in AIR 1969 SC 12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that:
“11. The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. ICT CONSUMER person holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertake H that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties viz. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires (cf. Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Edn. Vol. 26 p. 17). The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency.”
The degree of skill and care required by a medical practitioner is so stated in Halsbury’s Laws of England (Fourth Edition, Vol. 30, Para 35):-
“The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.
Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis it must be shown (1) that there is a usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course
in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had been acting with ordinary care. ”
Above said three tests, have also been stated as determinative of negligence in professional practice by Charles Worth& Percy in their celebrated work on Negligence (ibid, para 8.110).
In the opinion of Lord Denning, as expressed in Hucks v. Cole, reported in [1968] 118 New LJ469, a medical practitioner was not to be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
The line between civil liability and criminal liability in medico-legal cases is thin, and in the case of Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT Delhi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held:
“For fixing criminal liability on a doctor or surgeon, the standard of negligence required to be proved should be so high as can be described as “gross negligence” or recklessness”. It is not merely lack of necessary care, attention and skill. The decision of the House of Lords in R. Vs. Adomako (Supra) relied upon on behalf of the doctor elucidates the said legal position and contains following observations :-
“Thus a doctor cannot be held criminally responsible for patient’s death unless his negligence or incompetence showed such disregard for life and safety of his patient as to amount to a crime against the State.”
Thus, when a patient agrees to go for medical treatment or surgical operation, every careless act of the medical man cannot be termed as ‘criminal’. It can be termed ‘criminal’ only when the medical man exhibits a gross lack of competence inaction and wanton indifference to his patient’s safety and which fou have arisen from gross ignorance or gross negligence. Where a patient results merely from error of judgment or an accident, no criminal liability should be attached to it. Mere inadvertence or some degree of want of adequate care and caution might create civil liability but would not suffice to hold him criminally liable.
This approach of the courts in the matter of fixing criminal liability on the doctors, in the course of medical treatment given by them to their patients, is necessary so that the hazards of medical men in medical profession being exposed to civil liability, may not unreasonably extend to criminal liability and expose them to risk of landing themselves in prison for alleged criminal negligence.
11.For every mishap or death during medical treatment, the medical man cannot be proceeded against for punishment. Criminal prosecutions of doctors without adequate medical opinion pointing to their guilt would be doing great disservice to the community at large because if the courts were to impose criminal liability on hospitals and doctors for everything that goes wrong, the doctors would be more worried about their own safety than giving all best treatment to their patients. This would lead to shaking the mutual confidence between the doctor and patient. Every mishap or misfortune in the hospital or clinic of a doctor is not a gross act of negligence to try him for an offence of culpable negligence.”
The discussion on Medical Negligence would be incomplete without referring to Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee, reported in(1957) 1 WLR 582, where it was held:
Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he as not got this special ES REORASSAL CHENNAL
The fest is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and profession to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art…” (Emphasis supplied). In the case of Arun Kumar Manglik v. Chirayu Health and Medicare Private Limited and Anr. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 401, The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the standard of care as enunciated in Bolam case must evolve in consonance with its subsequent interpretation by English and Indian Courts. The threshold to prove unreasonableness is set with due regard to the risks associated with medical treatment and the conditions under which medical professionals function. The Court held as under:
“45. In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches to treatment. There can be a genuine difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the medical professional must ensure that it is not unreasonable. The threshold to prove unreasonableness is set with due regard to the risks associated with medical treatment and the conditions under which medical professionals’ function. This is to avoid a situation where doctors resort to “defensive medicine” to avoid claims of negligence, often to the detriment of the patient. Hence, in a specific case where unreasonableness in professional conduct has been proven with regard to the circumstances of that case, a professional cannot escape liability for medical evidence merely by relying on a body of professional opinion”
In AchutraoHaribhauKhodwa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors, reported in 1996 SCC (2) 634, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indecibe slove in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which it acceptable to the medical profession, and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence.
The above view was again reiterated in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital and Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia and Anr, reported in (1998) 4 SCC 39 was held that an error of judgment is not necessarily negligence. The Court referred to the decision in Whitehouse & Jorden, [1981] 1 ALL ER 267, and cited with approval the following statement of law contained in the opinion of Lord Fraser determining when an error of judgment can be termed as negligence:-
“The true position is that an error of judgment may, or may not, be negligent, it depends on the nature of the error. If it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant holds himself out as having and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligence. If, on the other hand, it is an error that such a man acting with ordinary care, might have made, then it is not negligence.”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Pamidighantam Sri Narasimham, J. & Pankaj Mithal, J.
NEERAJ SUD & ANR. Appellants/Respondents vs JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) & ANR. -Respondents/Appellants has described Medical Negeligence as Mail Negligence Deable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constitueres
(1) duty to exercise due care, (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage -Simple lack of care, error of judgment or accident is not sufficient the proof of negligence on part of medical professional so long as doctor follows the acceptable practice of medical profession in discharge of his duties – He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment – Medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving treatment When reasonable care, expected of medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence Simply for reason that patient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by a doctor or that surgery has failed, doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that doctor failed to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties.
IV. ISSUES RAISED:
20. Based on the above facts, perusing the records before us, and hearing the submissions made by both sides, the following issues have become relevant
Issue No. 1: Whether there is Unfair Trade Practices / Medical negligence leading to deficiency in medical service on the part of the Opposite Party?
Issue No. 2: Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief and if so
to what extent?
Let’s inspect each of the above in detail.
L ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:
Issue No. 1: Whether there is Unfair Trade Practices / Medical negligence leading to deficiency in medical service on the part of the Opposite Party?
21. Based on the pleadings, evidence and submissions made by both the parties we found that the entire complaint against opposite party / Dr. Roshan Rayen rest on the following allegations.
The complainant claims that though the opposite party Dr. Roshan Rayen has received sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in the name of Rayen Dental Care Centre, and was found negligent, over charging and indulged in fabrication of documents leading to deficiency in medical services.
22. Now we will proceed to discuss the allegations on these counts as follows:
1. Medical Negligence
Admittedly, in this case the complainant after recovering from covid 19 pandemic deisease was undergoing treatment for Mucormycosis (Black Fungus) in Madurai, and later he was admitted in Madras ENT Research Foundation (MERF). Chennai as per Ex. A3 and Ex.B5. He was then referred by MERF to the opposite party in August 2021 solely for subsequent dental treatment and for prosthetic reconstruction if required as per Ex A2 dated 03.08.2021. The initial, life-saving maxillectomy surgery at MERF was performed by a multi-disciplinary team of surgeons, with the opposite party serving solely as a consultant within that team.
23. It is also the case of the complainant that initially for covid-19 he was treated in Guru Hospital, Madurai and Harshini Multi speciality Hospital, Madurai with a diagnosis of Rhino Orbital Mucormycosis (Black Fungus) and was treated medically and surgically for the same before being shifted to MERF in May 2021 as stated above.
24.In the discharge summary of MERF (Ex.B5) dated 14.08.2025 it is stated that the complainant is diagnosed with post covid bilateral sino nasal mucormycosis. The Ex.BS also proceeds to state that the procedure followed is right functional endoscopic sinus surgery with left partial maxillectomy done under G.A on 11.08.2021. It is also noted in the findings that Mucosa around the left upper alveolar margin elvated. Right central incisor, left upper central incisor, lateral incisors, two premolars and three molars removed along with the alveolus and left side hard palate.
Using microdrill all the walls of left axillary sinus removed except orbital floor. All the necrotic bone drilled. Primary closure of palatal flap done. Temporary obturated appliced. Ryles tube inserted and secured. Hemostasis chieved. Bilateral nasal packing done procedure uneventful.
Finally the Ex.B5 concludes with ‘To review with Dr. Roshan Dentist (opposite party herein) after a week’.
25. Thus we are able to arrive at a conclusion that as per Ex.BS the discharge summary, the entire sinus surgery with left partial maxillectomy was done by MERF on 11.08.2021 with the consultant doctor Dr Mohan Kameshwaran. We don’t find any active role of the opposite party in the above said surgery. Ex.B5 further makes it clear that the complainant was advised to go for consultation after a week with the opposite party for dental treatment alone.
26. Now we will proceed to analyse the active role played by the opposite party in performing post surgery treatment for dental issues faced by the complainant. The opposite party found to have treated the complainant in Rajan Dental Institute on 05.12.2021 and stood as consultant and surgery was again done by Dr. Srinivasn and Dr.Pradeep, The procedure adopted is found to be LEFT UPPER ZYGOMA AND CON. IMPLANT as per Ex.B9.
27. Review after a week post-surgery revealed satisfactory heating of of blood (純 maxillary flap with very minimal Oro-antral communication (lack and death of tissue). Surgical closure of Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) under local anaesthesia as an outpatient procedure was performed immediately. “The medical records reveals that the complainant was very well informed about the nature of the outcome of the procedure under guarded prognosis”. Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) persisted after the procedure as well. Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) is an abnormal connection between oral cavity and maxillary sinus often occurring after a surgical procedure especially involving maxillary teeth or maxilla. The patient has undergone maxillectomy. Hence Oro-antral communication (lack of blood supply and death of tissue) was found to be inevitable as claimed by the opposite party. The surgery was performed with the consent of the complainant explaining the nature of disease, treatment procedure and possible outcomes. Furthermore, the Mucormycosis itself has the feature of producing avascular necrosis (a condition where bone tissue dies due to a lack of blood supply) and compensated healing (a situation where the body attempts to repair or compensate for tissue damage, but the process deviates from normal healing pathways, leading to various pathological outcomes resulting in non-healing wounds or inadequately healing wounds). They are consequences of the disease itself and cannot be attributed to the negligence of the treating doctor or the surgeon like the opposite party herein.
28. The complainants allegation that after ten days from the date of fixing the steel rod, the food and liquids taken by the complainant came out through nose with great irritation and burning sensation. When the opposite party was informed, he informed that after the heal of the wound the problem would be rectified. The complainant was believing and adjusting with the problem. But the problem was not cured. After some days the opposite party found that there is a big opening in the area through which the food and liquid come out. The opposite party then put many stitches in the opening. Even then the problem was not rectified. The complainant suffered every time and he was inducted heavy local anesthesia. The opposite party then again suggested for plastic surgery to close the opening in the left jaw and the complainant was again admitted at Rajan Dental Institute Pvt. Ltd on 12.10.2022, Ex. B11 confirms that the opposite party has successfully completed the Fistula Closure.
29. The complainant’s claim that he is still suffering with this problem till date. The rod was negligently implanted by the opposite party because of the opposite party carelessness are vague allegations and are all not supported by subsequent medical records or experts evidence.
30. Further allegation that the opposite party assured that he would close the opening in the jaw bone and performed many surgeries in his clinic to close the opening and every time the opposite party would give heavy local anesthesia and perform surgeries are also not supported by any medical records or expert evidence.
31. The complainant was undergoing continuous treatment but all the treatment went in futile is also not supported by any medical records and evidence. On one occasion namely on 02.02.2023 the opposite party hit the rod with his instrument and caused heavy bleeding The opposite party went out of the place leaving the complainant abruptly, saying he got scared. The complainant had sent many whatsap messages to the opposite party. The treatment went till April 2023. We observe that the complainant has not produced any medical records or expert evidence to establish that the treatment given by the opposite party resulted in above complications and there is carelessness on the part of the opposite partynin giving treatment or performing procedures till April 2023. The claim negligence due to ongoing difficulties, such as Oro-antral communication (OAC) and discomfort from the implant, are though presented as proof of negligence which causes a vascular necrosis and compromised healing, we do find that they were duly communicated with a guarded prognosis by the opposite party. They do not automatically imply that the opposite party performed the procedures improperly or with a lack of reasonable skill. At this stage we would like to rely upon the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in NEERAJ SUD & ANR. Appellants/Respondents vs JASWINDER SINGH (MINOR) & ANR. -Respondents/Appellants wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that (1) Medial Negligence 20
Now we will proceed to analyse the another allegation of over charging and Indulge in fabrication of documents. We do find that the complainant was produced with receipt of payment of Rs.3,32,757/- and Rs.2,82,169/- (Total Rs.6,14,926/-) as per Ex.A7 during the treatment provided by the opposite party. The claim of the complainant that he has paid sum of Rs.7,50,000/- in the name of Rayen Dental Care Centreis not supported by any document or proof of payment. The issue of alleged ‘over charging’ or any ‘excessive payment’ or ‘fabrication of documents’ towards the treatment cannot be a subject matter of adjudication by this Commission. Hence we also don’t find merit in these allegation levelled by the complainant against the opposite party. Thus the complaint on whole lacks merit deserves to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to Steno Typist, transcribed, and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on this the 11 day of November, 2025
Actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (1) duty to exercise due care: (0) breach of duty and (il) consequential damage – Simple lack of care, error of judgment or accident is not sufficient the proof of negligence on part of medical professional so long as doctor follows the acceptable practice of medical profession in discharge of his dutier -He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment wat available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment – Medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving treatment When reasonable care, expected of medical professional is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence Simply for reason that potient has not responded favourably to surgery or treatment administered by a doctor or that surgery has failed, doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence straightway by applying doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor unless it is established by evidence that doctor falled to exercise the due skill possessed by him in discharging of his duties
Hence we are of considered view that in the instant case we don’t find any negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite party in performing the surgeries or procedure to hold him liable for medical negligence leading to deficiency in service.
