AI generated imageNEW DELHI: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a finding of medical negligence against Sabka Dentist and a consulting doctor after holding that a woman was subjected to improper root canal treatment and crown procedures and was later denied replacement of defective Zirconia crowns despite a 15-year warranty. The commission directed the dental chain and doctor to comply with an earlier order directing them to pay Rs 4.32 lakh towards corrective treatment and Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony and litigation costs.Why did the woman approach the commission?The complainant, Kalpana Tripathi underwent root canal and crown procedures at Sabka Dentist in Sanpada, Navi Mumbai, between July 2018 and January 2019, according to the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission's order dated August 7, 2026.Tripathi had initially approached the clinic for aesthetic smile correction and minor filling work. She later underwent root canal treatment on nine teeth and received multiple crowns as part of the treatment.She alleged that the dental procedures were carried out without proper diagnostic precautions and that the natural height of her teeth was excessively reduced while preparing them for crowns. According to her, the crowns subsequently started falling out and breaking, leaving her with damaged teeth and requiring corrective treatment elsewhere.She later consulted doctors at Vivaan Dental Care, who, according to the records before the commission, found that the natural dental height had been unnecessarily reduced and that the crowns could not be properly retained because of the damage caused during the earlier treatment.Tripathi also alleged that one of the Zirconia crowns fell within a year despite being covered by a 15-year warranty. She approached Sabka Dentist seeking replacement of the crown, but the clinic did not provide the replacement.She further claimed that the warranty cards handed to her did not even carry her name. Instead, the cards contained the names of other patients."The respondent no.1 was given guarantee cards by respondent no.2 at present she has 6 guarantee cards but in this cards strangely the name of the respondent no.1 was nowhere mentioned," the order records.Tripathi then approached the consumer commission seeking compensation for the corrective treatment and for the mental and physical harassment allegedly caused by the dental treatment.Sabka Dentist disputed the allegations and said the treatment had been provided according to the diagnosis and treatment plan accepted by Tripathi. The dental chain argued that the doctors were qualified and that the procedures were performed according to standard clinical protocols.The consulting doctor also defended the treatment, claiming that root canal procedures had been advised because of the condition of the teeth and that X-rays had been taken during the treatment. She further argued that the warranty applied only to the crown and not to the underlying tooth structure.Why did the commission hold Sabka Dentist and doctor liable?The bench comprising Justice S.P. Tavade and member Dr Nisha Amol Chavhan noted that the dental chain had failed to produce verified pre-operative X-rays or clinical baselines to justify carrying out root canal treatment on nine teeth.The commission observed that Tripathi had initially approached the clinic for aesthetic treatment and minor filling corrections and that invasive procedures required proper diagnostic justification."Performing irreversible, invasive procedures without demonstrating radiological necessity falls short of the expected duty of care," the commission observed.It also relied on the independent evaluation and corrective treatment records from Vivaan Dental Care, which found that the natural dental height of her teeth had been excessively reduced during crown preparation.The commission said such excessive reduction could compromise the structural integrity of the teeth and affect the retention of the crowns."This excessive preparation directly caused the frequent dislodgement, coronal fracturing, and subsequent inability of new prosthetics to adhere without costly full-mouth reconstruction," the commission said.The commission rejected the defence that tooth reduction was a subjective matter and held that the treatment had caused damage to the patient's natural teeth.It also found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the refusal to replace or repair the defective Zirconia crowns during the 15-year warranty period.The commission said the warranty formed part of the service agreement and could not be separated from the functional purpose for which the crowns were provided."The refusal to replace or repair defective Zirconia crowns during the subsisting 15-year warranty period, coupled with the issuance of warranty cards bearing the names of third-party patients, constitutes a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice," it observed.The State Commission accordingly dismissed Sabka Dentist's appeal and upheld the Additional District Consumer Commission's October 20, 2022 order.The original order had directed Sabka Dentist and the consulting doctor to jointly and severally pay Rs 4,32,208 towards corrective treatment, along with Rs 2 lakh towards mental agony and litigation costs, with 12 percent annual interest on the compensation amount from the date of the order. The State Commission directed both parties to comply with the directions within 45 days.