Woman 'stings' dentist, drags her to forum

Meted out poor treatment by her dentist, a Bavdhan woman conducted a sting operation and later dragged the dentist to the consumer forum. She recorded the dentist admitting her mistake and used it as evidence.

The consumer forum accepted the medical negligence and partly allowed the complaint against it. The forum has asked the dentist Shaila Kulkarni to pay Deepti Salunke, a resident of Serenity Apartment, Ramnagar Colony, Bavdhan, Rs 5,000 as refund of dentist fees, Rs 5,000 spent in the legal procedure and Rs 15,000 towards mental agony suffered by her.

The complainant, however, could have got lot more had she followed a few basic procedures.

Salunke had approached the forum on August 22, 2008, against Kulkarni alleging that she had approached the dentist for root canal treatment for small cavity in upper right first pre-molar tooth. But even after the treatment, pain continued and when she visited another dentist, she was told that the root canal done earlier was incorrect leading to secondary infection in the tooth. The earlier root canal needed a capping and the cost was estimated at Rs 32,000.

Salunke’s lawyer Gaikwad argued, “Subsequently, Salunke’s tooth broke and she was advised for implant treatment which would cost Rs 35,000.”

The forum headed by justice president VP Utpat and member Geeta Ghatge observed that even though the dentist had agreed to pay a compensation in front of another witness in the recorded conversation, it can’t accept the evidence.

The complainant had converted the recorded conversation into a CD, but in order to rely upon the evidence on tape recorder, the rules of evidence should be made applicable. 

“The opponent has not admitted to the conversation. In such circumstances, an opportunity should be given to the opponent to testify the conversation which is relied upon by the complainant. For that, the dummy conversation of the same person should be recorded and the voice in the conversation in question should be compared with the voice it. That procedure was not followed by the complainant,” observed the forum.

The dentist admitted that Salunke had visited her clinic, but she filed a written statement before the forum by her lawyer which claimed, “There is no deficiency in service and the treatment given was proper. 

Salunke had taken treatment from various dentists and she might have suffered later. Moreover, Salunke has filed case with an ulterior motive to exact money, as it was filed 23 months after the treatment.”

The forum observed, “Even if it is assumed that broken file noticed in tooth X-ray is not left at the hands of opponent still inference of deficiency in service can be drawn as the root canal treatment which was given by the opponent was failure and complainant had required to take further treatment from the other dentist.”