Ashish Panchal v. HOD Ruchi Juneja

2

OP with the responsibility of dental of complainant concern, their actions have resulted in negative outcomes, such as increase in pain, removal of wrong tooth, further damage to the tooth and severe pain etc. Upon seeking the second opinion from another qualified dental professional, it has been confirmed that the treatment provided by the OP the deviated from the standard level of care expected in the dental profession. This negligence has caused the complainant significant physical discomfort, emotional distress and financial burden. A legal notice dated 28.03.2024 was sent to the OP but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to resolve the grievances, provided necessary treatment and held the OP liable to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% for causing physical and emotional harassment, mental pain due to denial of treatment to complainant, to pay Rs.21,000/- towards the litigation expenses and any other relief to which this Commission deem fit and proper may also be granted.

2. On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP was on winter vacation leave from 02.01.2023 to 25.01.2023 from the Department of Dentistry, Kalpana Chawla

3

Government Medical College (KCGMC), Karnal. As the OP was on leave on 05.01.2023, the question of referring the complainant to any other doctor for the treatment does not arise at all. However, it is submitted that Dr. Sugandha was not in internee, as alleged. Dr. Sugandha is a qualified dentist having BDS degree, who was selected as junior resident following vigorous recruitment procedure in form of written test and interview by the recruitment committee of medical college. Furthermore, it is denied that the complainant was wrongly treated and another tooth was removed by his treating doctor. On the contrary, no tooth had been removed, at all from the complainant's mouth on 05.01.2023 or any other date, during the course of treatment of complainant in Department of Dentistry, KCGMC, Karnal, which is very much clear from the record produced by the complainant with the present complaint. It is evident from records submitted by the complainant, that the dental examination of the complainant was done on the alleged date i.e. 05.01.2023, and in subsequent appointments, root canal treatment (RCT), which is a treatment done to save the infected teeth from extraction/removal, was done in two teeth involved with periapical pathology as per standard treatment protocol. The allegation of removal of wrong tooth leveled by the complainant is unfounded, untrue and the complainant is required to prove this with strict proof. The treating doctor has given proper treatment to the complainant in accordance with the standard

4

guidelines. On 06.03.2023, complainant has filed the false complaint against the OP to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Haryana, on 20.03.2023 to the Medical Superintendent, KCGMC, Karnal and on 25.03.2023 to the Joint Director, Medical Education and Research, Sector-22, Panchkula. However, complainant had never mentioned about removal of his wrong tooth and wrong treatment by the treating doctor in any of those complaints. After receipt of the above complaints by medical college authorities, a committee was formed by the Medical Superintendent, KCGMC, Karnal on 20.03.2023 to make enquiry about the allegations leveled by the complainant in the above mentioned complaints. During this enquiry, the complainant himself appeared before the enquiry committee and on 10.04.2023, he submitted in writing to the Medical Superintendent, KCGMC, Karnal that he is fully satisfied with the enquiry as his grievances were duly addressed and the complaints filed by him may kindly be consigned. On the same day i.e. on 10.04.2023, the complainant also sent an email from his email Id to the Medical Superintendent, KCGMC, Karnal that this problems and grievances have been solved, for which he thanked the medical superintendent, Enquiry Committee and OP/HOD, Department of Dentistry and requested that his complaint may kindly be consigned. The complainant has concealed all the above mentioned facts from this Commission, thus, the complaint filed by the complainant is totally false and baseless. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant

5

was examined by the OP on 10.04.2023, for the first time and then the complainant had given a history to the OP that he had suffered a dental trauma approximately 18 years ago and that the complainant had received some dental treatment at the time of injury. His dental x-ray had revealed periapical pathology in two front teeth, for which he was undergoing root canal treatment in Department of Dentistry, KCGMC, Karnal since 13.01.2023. Thereafter, the pending RCT Steps of complainant's teeth were performed by the OP on the same day, i.e. 10.04.2023 and thereafter on 17.04.2023, as per adopted and well established standard protocol and the complainant was further called for follow up after three months. Thereafter, complainant was examined by the senior resident doctor on duty on 10.07.2023 when he made no fresh complaint of any kind in his teeth and the healing of the complainant was found satisfactory. The complainant has been given proper treatment in Department of Dentistry, Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal by the treating doctors including OP and there is no medical negligence in the treatment of the complainant by the OP or any other doctor of the Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College, Karnal. The complainant has never complained about any pain/wrong tooth removal/further damage t his tooth etc. in any of his treatment appointments or lateron on till 10.07.2023. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

6

on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

3. Parties then led their respective evidence.

4. Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of treatment card dated 05.01.2023 Ex.C1, copy of treatment card dated 17.04.2023 Ex.C2, copy of RTI copy dated 16.02.2024 Ex.C3, copies of outpatient cards Ex.C4 to Ex.C10, copy of RTI dated 09.11.2023 Ex.C11, postal receipt and registered AD Ex.C12 and Ex.C13, copy of complaint to State Public Information Officer Ex.C14, postal receipt and AD Ex.C15 and Ex.C16, copy of legal notice dated 28.03.2024, postal receipt and track consignment Ex.C17 to Ex.C19, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C20 and closed the evidence on 19.05.2025 by suffering separate statement.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Ruchi Juneja Ex.RW1/A, copy of covering letter Ex.OP1, copy of attendance register Ex.OP2, copy of winter vacation roaster Ex.OP3, copy of email dated 20.03.2023 Ex.OP4, copy of email attachment Ex.OP5, copy of email dated 28.03.2023 Ex.OP6, copy application dated 10.04.2023 Ex.OP7, copy of application to C.M. Window dated 06.03.2023 Ex.OP8, copy of OPD slip Ex.OP9, copy of C.M. Window report (final report) dated 24.05.2023 Ex.OP10, copy of email dated 10.04.2023 Ex.OP11, copy

7

of letter dated 14.12.2018 Ex.OP12 and closed the evidence on 13.11.2025 by suffering separate statement.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties. Learned counsel for the parties also submitted written synopsis which were taken on record.

7. Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 05.01.2023, complainant has taken dental treatment from the OP. OP referred the complainant for treatment to her internee i.e. Sugandha, who treated the complainant and removed/RCT another tooth in place of one meant for the treatment, without opinion or consulting any senior or expert. As per treatment record, Dr. Sugandha did not mention anywhere that the other tooth was also infected and hence removed/RC of the other tooth is being done. Upon seeking the second opinion from another qualified dental professional, it has been confirmed that the treatment provides by the OP the deviated from the standard level of care. The removal of wrong tooth was negligence on the part of the OP. During the treatment, complainant was repeatedly administered anesthesia without the consent of the complainant, which was against standard operating protocol and the Dentistry Department has no record in this regard. Dr. Sugandha was not of experience doctor. Due to removal of wrong tooth, the

8

complainant has suffered harassment, mental pain, agony, physical discomfort, emotional distress etc. and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the case law titled as J. Douglas Luiz (since deceased) Vs. Manipal Hospital in Civil Appeal no.1700 of 2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant came to OP hospital to get his dental treatment. The complainant has alleged that Doctor removed/RCT of another tooth in place of one meant for the treatment but OP was never extracted/removed the tooth as per the record submitted by the complainant himself. He further argued that the was on leave from 2.01.2023 to 25.01.2023 was on winter vacation leave. Therefore, question of referring the complainant to her internee Dr. Sugandha by the OP on 05.01.2023 does not arise at all. Dr. Sugandha is a qualified dental graduate. The OP has given the treatment to the complainant on 10.04.2023 for the first time and thereafter on 17.04.2023 and the complainant was asked to report after 3 months. On 10.07.2023, complainant was examined by senior resident doctor and the healing of complainant's teeth was found satisfactory and complainant made no complaint of any kind in his teeth during and after this period to the OP. The complainant has taken free treatment from OP hospital and nothing is

9

charged from the complainant for the treatment of the complainant's teeth. There is no negligence on the part of the OP doctor in treating the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned counsel for the OP relied upon the case law titled as Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha 2009 (3) Apex Court Judgments 424 (SC), date of decision 04.09.2009; Neeraj Sud & An. Vs. Jaswinder Singh (minor) and Anr. 2024

(3) Apex Court Judgments 296 (S.C.), date of decision 25.10.2024 and Sant Masih Vs. Ashok Mahajan in RSA no.2965 of 2015, date of decision 01.05.2023 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10. In written synopsis submitted by the complainant, complainant has alleged that he has taken the second opinion from the another qualified dental professional and he has confirmed that the treatment provided by OP was deviated from the standard level of care expected in the dental profession, but complainant has not placed on file alleged second opinion sought by him from the another doctor. Further, said fact has not been mentioned in the present complaint. From the facts of the complaint and written synopsis, there are various variation in the allegations levied against the OP. Thus, it

10

appears that complainant has intentionally filed written synopsis just to improve his case.

11. Complainant moved a complaint Ex.OP8 dated 06.03.2023 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Haryana, the matter was forwarded for enquiry to the Enquiry Committee and during the enquiry, as per Final Action Taken Report Ex.OP10 dated 24.05.2023, complainant himself stated that he is satisfied with the enquiry and complaint be consigned.

12. The complainant has alleged that on 05.01.2023 complainant came to the OP hospital and OP has referred to him Dr. Sugandha, who was not qualified doctor. On the other hand, OP has alleged that she was on leave from 02.01.2023 to 25.01.2023 due to winter vacation, hence question for referring the complainant to another doctor does not arise at all. As per copy of the order Ex.OP3 issued by Director, KCGMC, Karnal, the OP i.e. Ruchi Juneja, Dentistry was on leave from 02.01.2023 to 25.01.2023. Thus, the question for referring the complainant by the OP does not arise at all. There is nothing on the file that Dr. Sugandha is not a qualified doctor.

13. The complainant has alleged that there is a medical negligence on the part of the treated doctor. On the other hand, OP has alleged that the complainant was treated as per the standard protocol by the treated doctor. It is settled proposition of law that burden of proof in case of negligence/ deficiency of service on the part

11

of doctor, is on the complainant because he alleges the same. In this regard, we placed reliance on the case law titled as Dr.(Mrs) Chanda Rani Akhouri Versus M.A. Methusethupati and others 2022 SCC SC 481, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "it clearly emerges from the exposition of law that a medical practitioner is 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 to another. In the practice of medicine, there could be varying approaches of treatment. There could be a genuine difference of opinion. However, while adopting a course of treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command. At the given time, medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonable competent practitioner in his field." Further, in case Sant Masih's case (supra) and Neeraj Sud's case (supra), the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Medical Negligence-A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not possessed with the requisite qualification or skill when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment.

14. It is also settled law, in a case of medical negligence, complainant has to prove the medical negligence in medical service by

12

producing medical expert report and no case can succeed solely on the basis of mere averments of the complainant. The complainant neither placed on file any expert opinion nor made any prayer for constitution of the Board of Doctors to opine whether the OP was negligent or not. The experts could have proved, if any, of the doctors in the Hospital providing treatment to the patient were deficient or negligent in service. The complainant has not produced any such evidence from which it can be proved that OP was negligence in removal of another tooth. In this regard, we placed reliance on the judgment case titled as C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), Ms (Ortho) Versus S. Ramanujam, decided on 01.05.2009 wherein Honb'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facta probantia." We place reliance on the judgment titled as

Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq ., decided on 17.02.2009 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-

"40.Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightaway liable for medical

13

negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional would be at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his lapse. xxx xxx xxx

42. When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalised for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions."

15. Furthermore, negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.

14

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. Further in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr.the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that

decided on 05.08.2005 the simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not a proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Negligence in the context of the medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alter- native course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure

15

which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions, what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used. Res ipsa loquitur is only a rule of evidence and operates in the domain of civil law, especially in cases of torts and helps in determining the onus of proof in actions relating to negligence. It cannot be pressed in service for determining per se the liability for negligence within the domain of criminal law. Res ipsa loquitur has, if at all, a limited application in trial on a charge of

16. In another judgment titled as Kusum Sharma and Others

v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Others decided on 30.08.2000, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a complaint was filed attributing medical negligence to a doctor who performed the surgery but while performing surgery, the tumour was

16

found to be malignant. The patient died later on after prolonged treatment in different hospitals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. We cannot take the benefits without taking risks. Every advancement in technique is also attended by risks. It is enough for the defendant to show that the standard of care and the skill attained was that of the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercising an ordinary degree of professional skill. The fact that the respondent charged with negligence acted in accordance with the general and approved practice is enough to clear him of the charge. Two things are pertinent to be noted. Firstly, the standard of care, when assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time (of the incident), and not at the date of trial. Secondly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that point of time on which it is suggested as should have been used. Further, in case titled as Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh & Others, decided on 07.07.2021 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances. However, in an unfortunate case, death may occur. It is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence

17

should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that death is due to medical negligence. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence.

17. We further placed reliance on the case law titled as

Dr.C.P.Sreekumar Versus S.Ramanujam 2009 CPJ 48 SC,

wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has held that as already observed in Jacob Mathew's case the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facta probantia. Further, Hon'ble National Consumer Commission, in case titled as Dr.Harkanwaljit Singh Saini Versus Gurbax Singh and another Ii> <i>2003 CPJ 153 NC, it has been held that "the Commission cannot constitute itself into an expert body and contradict the statement of the doctor unless there is something contrary on the record by way of expert opinion.

18. Keeping in view the ratio of the law laid down in the abovesaid judgments, facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we are of the considered view that complainant has miserably failed to prove the medical negligence on the part of the OP

18

and present complaint has been filed in order to harass and humiliate the OP.

19. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.02.2026

President,

District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Karnal.

(Sarvjeet Kaur) (Neeru Agarwal)

Member Member

Sushma

Stenographer

19

Present: Ms. Sushma Devi, LAC on behalf of the complainant. Dr. Ruchi Juneja alongwith Shri Arun Kumar, Advocate on behalf of OP.

Today the case is fixed for remaining arguments, if any and order. Arguments heard. Order announced. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance. Dated:16.02.2026

President

DCDRC, Karnal.

Member(I) Member(II)

Sushma

Stenographer