State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Anjana Satyajit vs Younhwa Kang And Others on 17 February, 2026
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HARYANA
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/669/2018
DR. ANJANA SATYAJIT
PRESENT ADDRESS - HEAD DENTISTRY, AT ARTEMIS HOSPITAL, SECTOR 51,
GURUGRAM. ,HARYANA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
YOUNHWA KANG AND OTHERS
PRESENT ADDRESS - H.NO. 163, PARK PLACE, GURUGRAM. ,HARYANA.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER
MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
MR. ROHIT GOSWAMI, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.1. PRESENCE OF RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3
ALREADY DISPENSED WITH.
DATED: 17/02/2026
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 22.05.2018 Date of final hearing: 17.02.2026 Date of order: 17.02.2026 First Appeal No.669 of 2018 IN THE MATTER OF:-
Dr. Anjana Satyajit, Head Dentistry, At: Artemis Hospital, Sector-51, Gurugram.
...Appellant Versus
1. Mrs. Younhwa Kang wife of Mr. Senghyun Roh, R/o H.No. N-163, Park Place, Gurugram.
.....Respondent
2. Artemis Hospital, a Unit of Artemis Medicare Service Ltd. At: Artemis Hospital, Sector-51, Gurugram.
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. At: 3, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110055.
.....Proforma Respondents
CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER
Present:- Mr. Rohit Goswami, counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent No.1.
Presence of respondent No.2 & 3 already dispensed with.
ORDER PER: S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER:
Delay of 12 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.
2. In present appeal No.669 of 2018; legality of order dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (In short "District Consumer Commission") in complaint case No.289 of 2015 has been assailed; vide which complainant's complaint has been allowed.
3. Factual Matrix: Complainant went to OP No.1 for dental problem, where X-ray was conducted and she was advised that a surgery is required for removal of tooth of lower jaw as so diagnosed by OP No 2. Complainant was having problem in one tooth of lower jaw but due to medical negligence her tooth No. 37 was extracted firstly. When complainant reported that she was still having pain in her jaw and also complained that wrong tooth has been extracted then tooth No. 38 was also extracted. As per plea, on account of wrong diagnosis and instead of one tooth, two teeth No. 37 and 38 were extracted, which has caused suffering to the complainant.
When complainant raised issue with the management then in order to hide their negligence they disclosed that both teeth were required to be removed but no such information was given by the OP before extraction of the said teeth. Keeping in view of the Res Ipso Loquitur the negligence on the part of OPs was evident. Initially Dr. Anjali Satyajeet did the diagnosis but later on the dental surgery was not done by her but was done by her subordinate.
4. Upon notice, OPs No. 1 & 2 raised contest and pleaded in their defense that complainant was having problem in both teeth No. 37 and 38 and which was required to be extracted and consent of the complainant regarding RCT of tooth No.37 was obtained. Tooth No. 37 had chronic irreversible pulpitis and tooth No. 37 was tendered due to impact of tooth No. 38. After extraction of tooth No. 38, it was noticed that tooth No. 37 was having grade III mobility and needed to be extracted. Tooth No. 37 was extracted in the same sitting by a qualified medical practitioner after taking due care and after obtaining consent from the complainant. OP No.2 has been unnecessarily impleaded as no cause of action can be said to have arisen against her as she was not the operating doctor. Complainant has received the best treatment from OP No. 2 as per the medical science. On 20.02.2015, complainant arrived at Hospital of OP No.1 with the complaint of pain in lower jaw and she was attended by OP No.2 who diagnosed her case as suffering from chronic irreversible pulpitis with regard to tooth No. 37 and impacted tooth No.38 for which Orthopantomogram (OPG) was done. Complainant was advised surgical extraction of tooth No. 38 and to save the tooth No.37. She was advised immediate RCT and crowning and was also advised that tooth No. 37 may also have to be surgical extracted. Complainant was informed that crowning of tooth No.37 shall be done after the extraction of tooth No 38 and tooth No. 37 might be detected/damaged. Complainant was given medicine to follow on 23.02.2015 and on 23.02.2015. RCT of tooth No.37 was started by Dr. Vipul Goel, MDS (Endodontics) and the process was completed on 27.02.2015 and crowning of tooth No. 37 was withheld till extraction of tooth No. 38 to ascertain whether the same was decayed/damaged or not. On 28.02 2015 complainant visited OP No.1 for surgical extraction of tooth No. 38 and the complainant was explained all the risk involved to adjacent tooth No. 37 and possibility of extraction of tooth No. 37 was also informed and consent of complainant for surgical extraction of tooth No. 38 and tooth No. 37 was obtained. Thereafter, tooth No. 38 was extracted by Dr. Manav Ahuja qualified MDS and after extraction Dr. Manav Ahuja found that tooth No.37 was having mobility of grade III and the same was also required to be extracted for medical reasons and the facts were duly explained to the complainant regarding extraction of tooth No. 37. Consent of complainant was obtained and tooth No.37 was also extracted in the same sitting and post surgery medicines were prescribed and the complainant was fully satisfied. Complainant had deposited Rs.5,940/- for crowning of tooth No. 37 but the same has been extracted and the refund of the said amount was offered and in alternative same could be adjusted for biocare implant. A Medical Board was constituted in order to see to medical negligence on the part of treating doctor but the medical board has given a wrong and false incomplete report dated 29.02.2016. OP No.1 and 2 has challenged the said report on the ground that the Medical Board did not consider the condition of tooth No. 37 in position of tooth No. 38 and has wrongly given the report and has not considered the scientific facts.
5. OP No.3 filed its separate defense and submitted that medical opinion is required to be sought in order to ascertain the medical negligence. Complainant had signed the consent form and agreed to the procedure done by the treating doctor. The claim of the complainant was not maintainable. There was no evidence on the file in order to quantify the compensation as claimed, if there was any deficiency in service on the part of treating doctor OP No.2, then OP No. 2 has breached the terms and conditions of the policy and as such OP No. 3 is not liable to indemnify the loss, if any.
6. Parties led their respective evidence. On analyzing same; learned District Commission, Gurgaon has allowed the complaint vide order dated 19.03.2018 and directed OP No.2 to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of medical negligence, pain suffering, litigation expenses, which shall be liable to be reimbursed from OP No. 3/insurer.
7. Feeling aggrieved; OP No.2 has filed this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has been heard at length. With his able assistance; record too has been perused. Nobody represented respondent No. 1 today i.e. on 17.02.2026. On the statement of learned proxy counsel for the appellant, service of respondent No. 2 & 3 has been dispensed with vide order dated 23.10.2018 by this Commission.
9. Learned counsel for appellant/insurer has urged that there is no proved medical negligence on the part of appellant in providing the medical treatment to the complainant. The Medical Board report dated 29.02.2016 has not specifically explained as to what type of negligence is done by the treating doctor and thus, appellant is not liable to pay any claim amount to complainant.
10. Admittedly, complainant approached the appellant with the problem in her teeth No.37 and 38. Complainant has pleaded in her complaint that the treating doctor was medically negligent in extracting the tooth No. 37. Medical Board vide its report dated 29.09.2016 has also proved the stance of the complainant that the treating doctor was negligent as the tooth 37 of the complainant was wrongly extracted. In wake of above objective discussion, this Commission has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that learned District Consumer Commission has thrashed the controversy in hand, meticulously by examining all relevant facets/evidence brought on record. There is no fallacy, legal or factual, by learned District Consumer Commission while passing impugned order dated 19.03.2018. This order is maintained and upheld. Present appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.
11. Statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal be disbursed to respondent No.1/complainant (Younhwa Kang), after due identification and verification as per rules.
12. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room.
17th February, 2026 S.C. Kaushik S.P. Sood
Member Judicial Member
Addl. Bench Addl. Bench
D.K.
..................
S . P . SOOD
JUDICIAL MEMBER
..................
SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK
MEMBER