Subscribe

0

Advertisment
News

Bengaluru Woman Sues Dentist For Lip Cut, Gets Rs 60,000

The dentist, identified as Vinod Pattabiraman, accidentally cut her upper lip with a dental blade machine, leaving a scar that required five stitches and potential plastic surgery.

author-image
Priya Prakash
New Update
Female Doctors In Middle Ages, Girl Recieves Unilateral Hand Transplant, Doctor Sexually Assaults Patients

File Photo

In June 2020, a 32-year-old woman residing in Ramamurthynagar, Bengaluru, experienced an unfortunate incident during an orthodontic procedure. The dentist, identified as Vinod Pattabiraman, accidentally cut her upper lip with a dental blade machine, leaving a scar that required five stitches and potential plastic surgery.
The woman took legal action, filing a lawsuit against the dentist. The court ruled in her favour, finding the dentist guilty of negligence and unprofessional behaviour. As a result, the dentist was ordered to pay Rs. 60,000 in compensation to the woman. The incident was reported in The Times of India.

Woman Sues Dentist For Lip Cut

Vinod Pattabiraman, the orthodontist who was familiar with the woman, performed orthodontics on her front tooth when an unfortunate incident occurred. While using a dental blade machine, he accidentally cut her upper lip. The woman, concerned about the injury, asked for a mirror to assess the damage. 
However, the dentist allegedly refused her request and only provided a bandage, dismissing it as a minor cut. The dentist charged her Rs 5,000 for the services rendered. Upon returning home, the woman realised the severity of her injury as the bleeding persisted. 
Seeking medical attention, she visited a hospital, where it was determined that the wound required five stitches. Two days later, when the bandage was removed, she was shocked to discover a significant scar extending from her lip to her nose. Following the incident, the woman took legal action by sending a legal notice to the dentist, demanding compensation of Rs 30 lakh. She also approached a consumer dispute redressal commission in the city.
The court proceedings commenced in September, during which the dentist's lawyer argued that the injury was a small cut and not a result of the doctor's negligence or intentional act. The lawyer further mentioned that the dentist had offered the woman to return to the clinic for the wound to be rectified, but she declined and sought treatment elsewhere.

The court ruled in favour of the woman, finding the dentist guilty of negligence. The awarded compensation of Rs 60,000 highlighted the impact of the incident. 

Advertisment