By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

            Complainant, Sulekha Muraleedharan has filed the petition against opposite party Dr. Prajith Sambath alleging negligence and deficient in service on the part of opposite party.  On 18-12-04 complainant had approached opposite party on account of tooth ache on the right 8^th molar tooth.  Opposite party examined the complainant and suggested the removal of the 8^th molar tooth of the complainant.  The same day complainant’s tooth was extracted.  After the extraction blood was oozing and the complainant had acute pain.  Even after two days of extraction of tooth as the complainant had acute pain she had again consulted the opposite party.  Then opposite party had applied Zinc Oxide Eugenol (Cement) on the injury at the extraction of the tooth.  But the pain continued.  Pain and sufferings of the complainant became acute and unbearable.  Complainant could not consume any food.  The complainant had approached department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Government Dental College, Calicut on 31-12-04.  There on observation and on X-ray it was found that the extraction of tooth site was sealed by a material and three bits of foreign bodies were present.  Surrounding Tissues were inflamed. On 8-1-05 complainant was subjected to surgery of right maxillary sinus from Government Dental College, Calicut and three bits of foreign bodies were removed.  The treatment from Government Dental College continued.  On 19-5-05 L A was done and OAE ( Oro Antral Fistula) was closed.  Complainant is still continuing treatment at Government Dental College as an outpatient.  The opposite party had recklessly and negligently extracted the right 8^th molar teeth of the complainant so as to cut the sinus opening and he had carelessly and negligently applied with Zink Oxide Eugenol which had reached at the maxillary sinus which caused suffering and hardship to the complainant.  The complainant was admitted in Government Dental College for 15 days.  The complainant is continuing her treatment.  All these admit had taken place due to the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite party.  Hence complainant has filed the petition seeking relief and compensation.

            Opposite party filed a version denying all the averments in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  Opposite party admits the fact that the complainant’s right 3^rd upper molar tooth was extracted on 18-12-04.  In the complaint filed by the petitioner it was wrongly stated as the 8^th molar tooth.  The complainant had approached opposite party after extraction of the tooth complaining pain.  Then the opposite party had advised to continue her medication as prescribed. The opposite party has never seen the complainant after that.  Complainant has not contacted opposite party seeking further advice.  The opposite party denies all the other statements made in the complaint.  The complainant has filed the petition only to extort money from the opposite party on false pretexts.  Opposite party has not promised to pay any compensation to the complainant.  No amount is liable to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. The complainant is liable to compensate the opposite party for her attempt to ruin opposite party’s professional reputation.  Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite party.

            The points for consideration is (1)  whether there was any negligence on the part of opposite party?  (2)  Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

            PW1 to PW5 were examined and Exts. A1 to A10 and Ext.C1 and C2 were marked on complainant’s side.  RW1 was examined on opposite party’s side.  No documents produced by the opposite party.

Point No.1:-

            The complainant’s case is that she had approached the opposite party who is a Dentist due to acute pain on the right 3^rd upper molar tooth.  Opposite party had examined and extracted the tooth.  Opposite party had prescribed medicine but the complainant felt acute pain even after extraction of the tooth.  After three days complainant again approached the opposite party due to severe pain.  Then the opposite party had applied Zinc Oxide Eugenol on the open wound and advised for continuing medicine.  According to the complainant the pain continued and became unbearable.  So she had gone to Government Dental College.  At Government Dental College, Calicut X-ray was taken which showed that the site of the tooth extraction was sealed by while cement )Zinc Oxide Eugenol and also three bits of foreign bodies were present.  An opening of 0.5 Cm diameter was persisting with surroundings in an inflamed condition.  Complainant was subjected to surgery and three bits of foreign bodies were removed and she still continuing the treatment in the Government Dental College, Calicut.  Opposite party contents that after two days of extraction of tooth the complainant had approached the opposite party complaining severe pain.  Opposite party had advised the complainant to continue her prescribed medication.  According to the complainant two days after the extraction of the tooth she had again approached the opposite party and opposite party had applied dental cement on 21-12-04.  But the opposite party contents that Ext.A10 dated 21-12-04 produced and marked on complainant’s side is the prescription given to the complainant by opposite party.  Ext.A10 does not mention the application of Dental cement.  The prescription was only to continue Tab. Flagyll for three more days.  If dental cement was applied on 21-12-04 it would have been noted in Ext.A10.  Opposite party also contents that there is no scientific proof that the foreign body allegedly found in the maxillary sinus of the complainant was dental cement.  Complainant has produced Ext.A2 case record from Dental College.  In the Ext.A2 report it is mentioned that oral examination and X-ray findings revealed the presence of three white masses in the maxilliary sinus.  Dr. Thomas Joseph who had examined the complainant and the complainant was examined as PW1.  PW1 admits that he had examined the complainant and also he was one among the doctors who had submitted medical report Ext.C1.  In his deposition Page-5 during cross examination to a question as to whether the removed particle was dental cement.  PW1 has answered there is a doubt that is why a question mark was put after zinc oxide eugenol.  PW1 has also admitted that after taking out the foreign body it was not subjected to any scientific analysis.  Page-6 of the deposition of PW1 again to a question whether the foreign body was dental cement.  PW1 has answered clinically it was not found to be zinc oxide.  From the evidence of doctor who treated the complainant in Dental College it is not concretely proved that the foreign body taken out after surgery was zinc oxide.  Doctors had came to the conclusion that as there was an open injury the opposite party must have applied zinc oxide eugenol which is what the dentist usually do in such a case.  But for this patient she experienced that while consumption food articles would reach the maxilliary sinus cavity and ultimately to the nose.  The complainant has taken a definite stand that zinc oxide eugenol was applied by opposite party which caused severe pain and later on she had undergone surgery in which three bits of foreign particles were removed,.  Two doctors, Dr. Thomas Joseph and Dr. Saju N.S. who had taken part in the surgery done to the patient and also who were a part of the board for preparing the medical report.  C1 and C2 were examined as PW1` and PW5.  In Ext.C1 report it was mentioned that oral examination and X-ray findings revealed the presence of three white masses in the maxilliary sinus of which one was removed which was observed to be Zinc Oxide Eugenol.  PW1 who was examined on the part of the complainant during cross examination but admitted that they were not sure whether the three particles removed by surgery were zinc oxide eugenol.  Doctor has admitted that in the X-ray as it was not clear there was a question mark put in the case record and also they have not conducted any clinical analysis.  Doctor who has conducted the surgery and who was a part of the medical board who filed the report was not able to prove the case of the complainant by saying that they had removed zinc oxide eugenol by surgery.  Three bits of foreign body were present which caused pain to the complainant which was later on removed from Government Dental College.  PW5 who had written Ext.C2 report which shows that complainant had continued treatment from Government Dental College has deposed that Page-2 “ 9-1-08 treatment is done for another teeth lower tooth she did route canal treatment.  She had done treatment from 4-7-06 onwards for another tooth from various other departments in Dental College.  This prove that the complainant had gone for treatment in Government Dental College regularly but not for the treatment of the extract tooth by the opposite party.  PW5 has deposed that zinc oxide eugenol is usually used for reducing pain after extraction of the tooth in case of dry socket.  He has also stated that if there is communication with maxilliary sinus Doctor do not use zinc oxide to fill.  PW5 Dr. Saju has also deposed that X-ray is not necessary in all cases of tooth extraction.  But X-ray was taken from Government Dental College because complainant complained of severe pain even after days of extraction of tooth.  X-ray showed three bits of foreign bodies in the mexilliary sinus.  PW1 Dr. Thomas Joseph, Professor of Government Dental College has deposed that there was a doubt about the foreign particles seen in the X-ray.  For this reason in Ext.A2 a question mark is put before the X-ray- zinc oxide eugenol.  So the person who has conducted the surgery of the complainant and also who was a part in filing the report is not sure that the foreign body is zinc oxide or some other particles.  Complainant has continuously argued that she had continued the treatment for years together.  PW5 who was also a part of the medical board for filing the report has deposed that Ext.C2 records are for the root canal treatment for another tooth.  PW5 has also stated in his deposition that no scientific test was done to determine whether the particles seen were zinc oxide eugenol or not.  According to PW5 the complainant was complaining continues head ache but there was no clinical symptom to specify that it was due to the earlier tooth extraction.  Zinc oxide eugenol can cause damage to that area only.  At Government Dental College three foreign particles were removed, which should have cured the complainant whatever complaints regarding the earlier tooth extraction done by the opposite party.  According to the two Doctors PW1 and PW5 they could not pin point any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  From the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and all the documents produced by the complainant Forum could not find any deficiency or negligence on the part of opposite parties.

Point No.2: -

            As the Forum does not find any negligence or deficiency on the part of opposite party we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            In the result the petition is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the  3d  day of December 2009.

                                Sd/-                                                  Sd/-

                        PRESIDENT                                       MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1.   Photocopy of prescription of the opposite party.

A2.   Photocopy of case record dated 31-12-02 from Medical College, Kozhikode.

A3.   Photocopy of case record dated 17-3-05 from  Medical College, Kozhikode.

A4.   Photocopy of treatment card issued by Post Graduate Section.

A5.   Photocopy of O.P. ticket.

A6.   Photocopy of case record dt. 30-4-05.

A7.   Photocopy of discharge summary from Govt. Dental College.

A8.   X-ray

A9.  Lawyer notice.

A10. Prescription dt. 21-12-04.

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

            Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Dr. Thomas Joseph, Professor, Govt. Dental College, Calicut.

PW2.  Sulekha.M. (Complainant)

PW3.  Muraleedharan, Husband of complainant.

PW4.  Siddiq, Vilaneri, P.O. G.A. College, Palazhi, Calicut.

PW5.  Dr. Saju. N.S., Assistant Dental Surgeon, Dist. Hospital, Kannur.

Witness examined for the opposite party.

RW1.  Dr. Prajith Sambath (Opposite party)

                                                                        Sd/- President

                        // True copy //

                                    (Forwarded/By order)

                           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.