Dentist fails to inform root canal risks, patient takes second treatment after suffering pain; Court orders doctor to pay Rs 2 lakh

A Delhi woman who paid Rs 1.10 lakh for root canal treatment, crowns and veneers later underwent corrective dental treatment after experiencing pain and other problems. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII in Delhi has directed the dentist to pay her Rs 2 lakh for deficiency in service.

The commission, however, did not hold the dentist medically negligent. Its September 8, 2026 order focused on the failure to establish that the patient had given informed consent after being properly told about the treatment, its risks and alternatives.

What happened after the woman visited the dentist?

The woman patient visited a dentist hospital in Vasant Vihar, Delhi, on August 9, 2023, after experiencing oral pain.


According to her complaint, the dentist advised root canal treatment and crowns for four teeth and veneers for two others. She paid Rs 1.10 lakh for the treatment.

The patient alleged that the dentist did not properly explain the risks, benefits and alternatives of the procedures or the extent of tooth structure that would have to be removed.

She further alleged that four root canals were carried out on August 31, 2023, followed by crowns and veneers on September 1. She complained that the crowns did not match properly and that she subsequently experienced pain, difficulty chewing and other discomfort.

Why did the patient seek treatment from another dentist?

After continuing to experience problems, the patient sought treatment at Sterling Dental Clinic.

Records from the clinic noted complaints involving the upper front teeth, gum irritation and previous root canal treatment. They also referred to bulky crowns and veneers, secondary decay and gingival swelling.

The patient underwent further treatment, including re-root canal treatment, removal of the earlier crowns and placement of new crowns and veneers. According to the complaint, she paid another Rs 1.38 lakh for the corrective treatment.

She later sent a legal notice to the original dentist on April 15, 2024, but said she received no response.

What did the dentist say in his defence?

Dentist denied the allegations and said the treatment had been discussed with the patient and her husband before it was undertaken.

He maintained that the patient had been given treatment options and had taken time before choosing the proposed procedures. He also denied the allegation that root canal treatment was performed without anaesthesia.

The dentist said the risks, benefits, alternatives and possible complications had been explained and that the patient had agreed to proceed with the treatment.

He also disputed the allegations regarding the patient's post-treatment problems and said oral hygiene had been discussed with her.

Did the consumer commission find medical negligence?

The commission specifically distinguished between treatment failure and medical negligence.

Referring to Supreme Court judgments including Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab and Martin E. D'Souza v Mohd Ishfaq, the commission noted that an unsuccessful treatment outcome by itself does not establish medical negligence.

Instead, the commission found deficiency in service because the dentist could not produce a signed informed consent document, proper medical or dental treatment records, or documentary evidence showing that the patient had agreed to the shape and shade of the crowns.

Why was informed consent important in this case?

The commission relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Samira Kohli v Dr Prabha Manchanda & Anr, which dealt with the importance of informed consent before medical treatment.

In the present case, the commission found that the dentist had not produced sufficient documentary evidence to show that the patient had been properly informed about the proposed procedures and had consented to them.

The absence of signed consent and proper treatment records became an important part of the commission's finding of deficiency in service.

Did the commission agree that the dentist performed the RCT without anaesthesia?

The commission did not accept the patient's claim that anaesthesia had not been administered.

The order noted that the patient's own legal notice had referred to a "failure to provide adequate anaesthesia". The commission considered this wording while examining the allegation and concluded that anaesthesia had been administered, although its adequacy was disputed.

Therefore, the compensation was not based on a finding that the root canal treatment was performed without anaesthesia.

Why did the commission reject the dentist's photographs?

The dentist relied on photographs relating to the patient's treatment. However, the commission found that the photographs were not properly authenticated.

The images did not contain details such as the patient's name, treating doctor's identity, clinic information, date or proper endorsement. The commission therefore did not rely on them to establish the treatment history or the patient's consent.

The commission also considered records from the second dental clinic, which documented pain and irritation, secondary decay, gingival swelling and the need for further treatment.

How much did the consumer commission order the dentist to pay?

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII allowed the complaint and directed the dentist to pay the patient Rs 2 lakh as a lump-sum amount, inclusive of litigation costs.

The amount was awarded for the deficiency in service arising from the failure to properly explain the treatment and establish informed consent.

The dentist has to comply with the order within three months of receiving it.