Credit Crunch: Dental patient successfully recovers significant damages from her credit card company for negligent dental treatment

A recent High Court decision provides an important reminder that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the CCA") still has 'teeth' when a credit card is used for the purchase of private dental care which results in an injury.

In the case of Bailey v (1) Bijlani (2) MBNA Ltd [2025] EWHC 175 (KB), the Court awarded substantial damages to the Claimant, who was a patient of a private dentist, after failed implant surgery. The Claimant also recovered against her credit card company, which was found by the Judge to be jointly and severally liable for the damages, as she had used her credit card to pay for the treatment.

What was the case about?

The First Defendant, Dr Monica Bijlani, ran a dental practice called Brilliant Dental Limited ('BDL'), trading as Dr Monica's Dental Clinic, in central London. The Claimant, Mrs Caroline Bailey, sought to recover significant damages for dental treatment carried out by Dr Bijlani in May 2018.

It was alleged that the removal of a longstanding bridge that the Claimant had in place of LL1 and LR1, and its attempted replacement with an implant, were both performed negligently by Dr Bijlani. The Claimant also alleged that she was not warned of the risks and benefits of the intended treatment, and she therefore did not provide informed consent. The Claimant attended Addenbrooke’s Hospital where it was identified that the implant had been drilled into the adjacent tooth.

As a result, the Claimant required surgical removal of the implant, suffered bone loss in her jaw and the loss of the two adjacent teeth (LL2 and LR2), considerable past remedial dental consultations / treatment and a need for future remedial treatment, and ischaemic colitis (as a result of the medication that the Claimant took to control her dental pain) which had developed into consequential persistent dietary intolerance.

The issues

The Claimant issued proceedings against Dr Bijlani in negligence. She also issued proceedings against her credit card provider, MBNA Limited, for liability under section 75 of the CCA.

At trial, the Judge found for the Claimant against Dr Bijlani in negligence. This was perhaps not surprising as Dr Bijlani did not call any expert evidence to respond to the Claimant's expert evidence. The Judge was also required to determine whether MBNA Limited was also liable, in respect of any breach of contract in relation to the dental care provided, under the provisions of section 75 of the CCA.

By way of a reminder, section 75 of the CCA provides that a credit card provider is jointly and severally responsible for any breach of contract, including a failure to provide services (in this case, dental services) that do not meet the requisite standard.

The key points of the judgment are as follows:

• Dr Bijlani breached her common law duty of care to the Claimant in a number of significant respects, causing pain, suffering and loss of amenity as well as other losses to the Claimant. She specifically failed to undertake a full and proper assessment of the Claimant's suitability for the proposed implant procedure. She failed to advise the Claimant properly or at all about the inappropriate nature of an implant in her circumstances and failed to advise properly or at all about the actual risks inherent in the procedure for this particular Claimant. Dr Bijlani therefore failed to obtain informed consent for the removal of the bridge and for the implant procedure.

• The Judge was satisfied that the damage to the Claimant's bone was a direct consequence of the negligent surgery, which was poorly planned, that the Claimant developed ischaemic colitis and that it arose as an albeit rare but known complication from the taking of NSAIDs.

• The Claimant contracted with BDL for the provision of dental services. The dental services were provided on behalf of BDL by Dr Bijlani. As a result, Dr Bijlani owed a duty of care to the Claimant in the provision of dental services. BDL was, however, the 'supplier' for the purposes of the CCA.

• The necessary contractual relationship was established to make MBNA Limited liable for any breach under section 75(1) of the CCA.

• The Judge also confirmed that MBNA Limited was entitled to an indemnity and/or contribution from Dr Bijlani in respect of damages and costs. Insofar as damages were concerned, not surprisingly given the circumstances of the case such indemnity/contribution would be on a 100% basis.

The Claimant was awarded £41,410 in general damages, and £87,663 in special damages.

Discussion

This case provides a useful reminder of perhaps an often overlooked potential recourse for patients when pursuing a medical negligence claim (not just dental) that has been paid for privately.

Patients ought to be very familiar of the protection provided by section 75 of the CCA – anyone who follows the 'Money Saving Expert' will know this! Yet we rarely see credit card companies being sued alongside the negligent doctor, dentist or clinic. Perhaps when the indemnity of the alleged negligent party is not an issue, there is no need.

This case is a good reminder however as to another option for claimants to seek recovery of damages, particularly when the indemnity or solvency of the alleged negligent party is in doubt. Whilst medical malpractice insurers and their Insureds may wish to steer a potential claimant towards her credit card company to head off a potentially costly defence of a claim, some degree of judgement will need to be exercised when doing so, since the credit card companies are likely to investigate this and they could still pursue the alleged negligent party for a contribution / indemnity, as was awarded in this case.

In applicable cases, however, where a credit card has been used to purchase treatment and the cost of the claim falls within the limit of protection provided by the CCA, it may be preferable for claimants to pursue the credit card company (if this is an option) rather than pursue creative and tenuous vicarious liability / non-delegable duty of care arguments against healthcare corporates, which have no guarantee of success. Otherwise they could end up with the definition of a pyrrhic victory, i.e. establishing breach and causation in respect of the index treatment, but not getting over the first crucial hurdle (duty of care).