Inquiry Launched After Patient Claims Wrong Tooth Removed

Patient Alleges Medical Error, Sparks Public Outcry

KASHMIR: A recent incident at the Government Dental College (GDC) in Srinagar has ignited controversy after a patient accused a doctor of extracting the wrong tooth during a dental procedure. The patient, Nadeem Ahmad, claimed that his healthy upper right tooth was removed instead of the problematic lower right tooth, as intended. Following the procedure, Ahmad shared his experience on social media, which quickly drew widespread attention and criticism from the public.

The allegations have prompted swift action from the administration. According to an article published on Kashmir Observer, the Principal of GDC Srinagar, Professor Aijaz Shah, confirmed that the doctor involved has been suspended pending the outcome of an inquiry. “A three-member committee, led by a senior professor and including the Medical Superintendent and Administrative Officer, has been formed to investigate the matter. The committee has been directed to submit its findings within three days,” Dr. Shah stated.

Doctor’s Defense: Procedure Followed Established Protocols

Dr. Meeran, the suspended doctor, provided his account of the incident in an interview with Kashmir Observer. He explained that the patient arrived accompanied by an assistant professor, and the case had been discussed with consultant Dr. Altaf Hussain Malik, who devised the treatment plan. Dr. Meeran stated that he was instructed to extract the upper right tooth, which he claims was identified by the patient during the procedure.

“During anesthesia, the patient’s attendant was present, as was my anesthesia assistant. If the patient had any concerns, he could have stopped me at that stage. The extraction went smoothly, and the patient did not express any discomfort at the time,” Dr. Meeran said. He expressed surprise at the subsequent accusation, noting that the patient had pointed to the upper tooth and did not object during the procedure.

Dr. Meeran also highlighted that his consultant reviewed the case and confirmed the extraction was correct. He questioned why this particular case is being scrutinized, given that he performs numerous extractions daily. “I perform many extractions every day, and I always ensure implied consent is obtained,” he added.

Consultant Corroborates Doctor’s Account

Dr. Altaf Hussain Malik, Assistant Professor at GDC Srinagar, corroborated Dr. Meeran’s account. He explained that the patient presented with pain and was examined thoroughly. According to Dr. Altaf, the upper third molar was malposed, while the lower right molar was carious but erupted. Although the upper molar was sound, it was decided to extract it due to its position—a procedure known as therapeutic extraction.

“Not all sound teeth are extracted, but sometimes malposed or impacted teeth are removed for the patient’s benefit,” Dr. Altaf stated. He emphasized that such decisions are made to prevent future complications, such as infections or discomfort.

Dr. Altaf defended Dr. Meeran’s qualifications and experience, stating that he has full faith in him. “Dr. Meeran documented the procedure and even gave the extracted tooth to the patient. He cautioned against rushing to judgment without considering the doctor’s qualifications and the rationale behind the extraction,” he said.

GDC Reiterates Commitment to Patient Care

In response to the growing public concern, Professor Aijaz Shah reiterated GDC Srinagar’s commitment to providing high-quality care to its patients. He assured the public that there would be no compromise on patient care under any circumstances. The formation of the inquiry committee underscores the institution’s dedication to addressing the issue transparently and promptly.

The controversy highlights the complexities of medical decision-making and the importance of clear communication between healthcare providers and patients. As the inquiry progresses, both the patient’s allegations and the doctor’s defense will be thoroughly examined to determine the facts of the case.

For now, the incident serves as a reminder of the challenges faced in healthcare settings and the need for robust mechanisms to address grievances effectively. The outcome of the inquiry is awaited with keen interest, as it may set a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.