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 irr