Introduction
Jump to
This is my report of the investigation into Mrs D’s complaint about Mr Narendranath (Mr Nath).1 This report contains my findings, conclusions and recommendations with regard to Mrs D’s areas of concern.
The complaint
Mrs D made a complaint to the Healthcare Commission2 in January 2008 about Mr Nath, the dentist at the Stone Family Dental Practice (the Practice), and the Commission recommended that he provide her with five specific apologies. Mrs D complains that Mr Nath has not provided her with the apologies that the Healthcare Commission recommended he make.
Mrs D says that because Mr Nath has not apologised she has been left feeling ‘offended’ and ‘shocked’ and unable to gain closure on her original complaint.
Mrs D is seeking the apologies from Mr Nath that were recommended by the Healthcare Commission.
My decision
Having considered all the available evidence related to Mrs D’s complaint about Mr Nath, and having taken account of the clinical advice we have received, I have reached a decision.
I found maladministration in relation to Mr Nath’s failure to implement the Healthcare Commission’s recommendations. This maladministration led to Mrs D suffering the injustice of feeling ‘offended’ and ‘shocked’ and unable to gain closure. I uphold the complaint about Mr Nath.
The Health Service Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and role
The Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 empowers me to investigate complaints about the NHS in England. In the exercise of my wide discretion I may investigate complaints about NHS bodies such as trusts, family health service providers such as GPs and dentists (like Mr Nath), and independent persons (individuals or bodies) providing a service on behalf of the NHS.
In doing so I consider whether a complainant has suffered injustice or hardship in consequence of a failure in a service provided by the body, a failure by the body to provide a service it was empowered to provide, or maladministration in respect of any other action by or on behalf of the body. Service failure or maladministration may arise from action of the body itself, a person employed by or acting on behalf of the body, or a person to whom the body has delegated any functions.
When considering complaints about dentists, I may look at whether a complainant has suffered injustice or hardship in consequence of action taken by the dentist in connection with the services the dentist has undertaken with the NHS to provide. Service failure or maladministration may arise from action taken by the dentist himself or herself, by someone employed by or acting on behalf of the dentist, or by a person to whom the dentist has delegated any functions.
If I find that service failure or maladministration has resulted in an injustice, I will uphold the complaint. If the resulting injustice is unremedied, in line with my Principles for Remedy, I may recommend redress to remedy any injustice I have found.
1 Mr Narendranath is known as Mr Nath.
2 At that time, under The National Health Service (Complaints) Regulations 2004, if a complainant was dissatisfied with a dentist’s response to a complaint they could refer their complaint to the Healthcare Commission
