On the Protection of Consumer Rights in Connection with the Provision of Poor-Quality Services for Dental Implant Placement
On July 26, 2024, the Plaintiff visited the dental clinic of “SA” LLP for a consultation with surgeon U.N.A. regarding dental implant placement and paid KZT 260,000 for the services, as confirmed by a fiscal receipt.
On August 2, 2024, the Plaintiff underwent bone augmentation surgery and dental implant placement. The operation was performed by Dr. U.N.A. and lasted more than four hours.
During the operation, serious violations in the organization of medical care occurred. According to the Plaintiff’s observations, the assistants dropped medical instruments, while the doctor left the operating room during the procedure to search for the necessary materials. These circumstances indicate inadequate preparation for the surgical intervention and violations of sanitary requirements.
Following the operation, the Plaintiff developed complications, including:
- severe swelling;
- a wound that failed to heal for an extended period;
- severe pain in the adjacent healthy tooth;
- headaches;
- elevated blood pressure;
- dizziness and nausea;
- the formation of a hematoma on the face;
- impaired nutrition and reduced working capacity.
On August 9, 2024, the Plaintiff’s sutures were removed.
On August 22, 2024, the Plaintiff returned to the clinic complaining of severe pain. The doctor informed her that the adjacent tooth had been damaged and that the installed implant needed to be removed because it had been improperly placed and was of an unsuitable size.
On August 24, 2024, the implant was removed, followed by repeat bone grafting surgery.
On September 5, 2024, the Plaintiff’s sutures were removed.
On November 15, 2024, a second implant placement operation was performed. The procedure lasted more than three hours; however, it was also unsuccessful, as the Plaintiff once again developed severe swelling and inflammation.
During a consultation on December 12, 2024, it was established that the repeat implantation had also been unsuccessful. Dr. U.N.A. recommended that the Plaintiff consult another surgeon, Dr. L.Y.K., promising that implant placement and gum correction surgery would be performed free of charge.
On December 26, 2024, the Plaintiff consulted Dr. L.Y.K., who conducted an X-ray examination and prepared a treatment plan estimated at KZT 975,000. Dr. U.N.A. agreed with this treatment plan.
Dr. L.Y.K. identified an inflammatory process and recommended removing the implant, followed by a six-month waiting period before proceeding with further treatment.
On the same day, Dr. U.N.A. removed the implant and informed the Plaintiff that she would need to wait for the specified period.
On May 30, 2025, the Plaintiff again consulted Dr. L.Y.K., and a new X-ray was taken. The examination revealed that the second tooth could no longer be treated with an implant due to bone tissue destruction resulting from three unsuccessful operations.
Dr. L.Y.K. refused to provide further treatment.
On the same day, the Plaintiff consulted Dr. U.N.A.; however, further treatment was also refused. No alternative treatment options were offered. The Plaintiff was advised to apply to the court.
The Plaintiff also contacted the director of “SA” LLP, Z.A., but the matter remained unresolved.
Furthermore, an infection was introduced during the course of treatment, resulting in the need for prolonged medication.
Throughout this period, the Plaintiff suffered from headaches and a general deterioration in her health, which significantly reduced her quality of life.
On May 31, 2025, the Plaintiff received a medical report recommending:
- bone grafting in the area of the tooth;
- treatment of the gum in the area of tooth 1.2;
- repeat diagnostics and planning for implantation of tooth 1.1;
- monitoring the condition of tooth 1.2.
A forensic examination was conducted to determine the quality of the medical care provided.
According to Expert Report No. 02-450, prepared by the Republican Chamber of Forensic Experts of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the medical services provided to the Plaintiff by “SA” LLP were performed in violation of medical standards and requirements, resulting in complications and the need for additional treatment.
The expert report confirms the existence of a causal relationship between the actions of the Defendant’s employees and the harm caused to the Plaintiff’s health.
To determine the cost of further treatment, the Plaintiff consulted GD Dental Clinic, where the cost of the necessary treatment was estimated at KZT 1,413,000.
Despite repeated requests, “SA” Clinic refused to remedy the consequences of the poor-quality treatment, refund the money paid, or provide the medical records.
Pre-trial claims were sent to the Defendant through JSC Kazpost; however, no responses were received.
Accordingly, the services were provided inadequately, resulting in harm to the Plaintiff’s health and financial losses.
The Plaintiff incurred court-related and other expenses totaling KZT 974,735.
Pursuant to Article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Consumer Rights Protection,” consumers are entitled to receive services of appropriate quality that are safe for their life and health.
Under Article 30 of the said Law, where services are provided inadequately, consumers are entitled to claim compensation for the losses incurred.
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Law “On Consumer Rights Protection,” harm caused to a consumer’s life, health, or property as a result of defects in services shall be compensated in full.
Under the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Public Health and the Healthcare System,” medical organizations are required to provide medical care in accordance with clinical protocols and medical standards.
Pursuant to Order No. 31 of the Minister of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 24, 2023, “On Approval of the Standard for the Organization of Dental Care in the Republic of Kazakhstan,” dental care must be provided in compliance with medical standards, safety requirements, and clinical protocols.
Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a violation of the standards governing the provision of medical care.
Pursuant to Article 68 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), evidence in a case consists of any information concerning facts on the basis of which the court establishes the circumstances of the case.
Under Article 91 of the CPC, an expert’s opinion constitutes evidence in a case.
The Plaintiff’s Expert Report No. 02-450, issued by the Republican Chamber of Forensic Experts, confirms that the Defendant provided inadequate medical care and that a causal relationship exists between the actions of the clinic’s medical personnel and the resulting consequences.
Pursuant to Article 951 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, moral harm shall be compensated in monetary form.
The Plaintiff requested that the court:
- Recover from the Defendant, in favor of the Plaintiff, KZT 260,000 representing the cost of services paid for but provided inadequately.
- Recover from the Defendant, in favor of the Plaintiff, KZT 1,413,000 for the necessary subsequent treatment.
- Recover from the Defendant, in favor of the Plaintiff, KZT 1,000,000 in compensation for moral harm.
- Recover from the Defendant, in favor of the Plaintiff, KZT 974,735 in legal costs.
On June 30, 2026, District Court No. 2 of the Almaly District of Almaty, presided over by Judge A.S. Syrgabayeva, with J. Isagulova acting as the court hearing secretary, considered Civil Case No. 7520-26-00-2/10437 in an open court hearing conducted using the WhatsApp mobile application and established the following.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Code”), a person whose rights have been violated may claim full compensation for the losses incurred, unless otherwise provided by legislative acts or an agreement.
Losses include expenses incurred or to be incurred by a person whose rights have been violated, the loss of or damage to that person’s property (actual damages), as well as income that the person would have received under ordinary conditions of civil commerce had their rights not been violated (lost profits).
This provision establishes that losses may consist of actual damages and lost profits.
To recover losses, several conditions must be established simultaneously, namely: the fact that losses were incurred; the Defendant’s unlawful conduct (the Defendant’s fault or failure to perform its obligations); a causal relationship between the losses incurred and the failure to perform or improper performance of obligations; and the actual amount of the losses.
In this regard, the matters to be proven in the case include the fact that harm was caused and the amount of losses incurred.
Pursuant to Article 917 of the Civil Code, harm (pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary) caused by unlawful acts or omissions to the property or non-property rights and interests of individuals and legal entities shall be compensated in full by the person who caused the harm.
It follows from the substance of this provision that the essential conditions for compensation for damages include the fault of the person causing the harm and a causal relationship between that person’s culpable conduct and the resulting consequences.
The court established that the Plaintiff had approached the Defendant’s clinic for dental implant placement and paid KZT 260,000, as confirmed by the receipt dated July 26, 2024.
Paragraph 13 of the Standard for the Organization of Dental Care in the Republic of Kazakhstan, approved by Order No. 31 of the Minister of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated February 24, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “Standard”), provides that dental care shall be provided to a patient after the patient has given informed consent to receive medical care in accordance with Article 134 of the Code.
In violation of the above requirements of the Code and the Standard, the clinic failed to obtain the patient’s informed consent to receive medical care.
Furthermore, in violation of paragraph 5 of Chapter 1 of the Standard, no standard contract for the provision of paid dental services was executed.
Pursuant to Appendix 1 to the joint order of the Minister of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 15, 2018, No. KR DSM 32, and the Minister of National Economy of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 15, 2018, No. 70, “On Approval of Risk Assessment Criteria and Inspection Checklists in the Areas of Medical Services (Care), Circulation of Medicines and Medical Devices,” the absence of a contract for paid services in healthcare organizations and the provision of dental care without obtaining the patient’s informed consent constitute serious violations of the applicable requirements, for which administrative liability is предусмотрена.
Furthermore, according to the court-appointed expert examination, the following violations were identified at “SA” Dental Clinic.
When the Plaintiff first approached the clinic, the doctor recorded that the “oral cavity had not been sanitized; oral hygiene was unsatisfactory; a large amount of dental deposits was present on the mucous membrane; generalized periodontitis of the second degree was observed, resulting in bone tissue loss and gingival recession throughout the dental arch ... inflammation was present in the area of the root of tooth 1.1.”
In view of these findings, professional oral hygiene should have been performed at a minimum. Ideally, treatment of generalized periodontitis and inflammation in the area of the root of tooth 1.1 should also have been carried out. However, these measures were not taken.
The expert further noted that following the first unsuccessful operation, the doctor should have reconsidered the Plaintiff’s treatment plan. Instead, a merely formal approach was continued. In violation of regulatory requirements, no computed tomography (CT) scan was performed to assess bone tissue regeneration, and no physical examination was conducted to identify any pathology requiring oral sanitation. In addition, no informed consent form or service contract was provided.
The Defendant did not dispute that, when the Plaintiff sought dental care at the clinic, no service contract had been concluded, the Plaintiff had not been properly informed of her health condition, diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment plan, and her informed consent—or refusal to receive information—had not been duly documented before the dental services were provided.
The Defendant failed to rebut the expert’s findings and the specialist’s opinion with admissible and reliable evidence.
Based on the evidence collected in the case and the circumstances established, the court concludes that the Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the inadequate provision of medical services, which resulted in harm to her health, are substantiated.
When approaching the Defendant, the Plaintiff expected to receive quality dental care but failed to achieve the desired result.
Under these circumstances, and given the actual absence of both functional and aesthetic results from the medical services provided, the Plaintiff’s claim for a refund is subject to satisfaction. Accordingly, KZT 260,000 paid for the services shall be recovered from the Defendant in favor of the Plaintiff.
Claim No. 2
Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On Certain Issues Concerning the Application by Courts of Legislation on Compensation for Harm Caused to Health,” depending on the nature of the claims, a statement of claim must be accompanied by evidence demonstrating that harm was caused to the injured person, including, in particular, an opinion confirming the injured person’s need for outside care and other types of additional expenses.
Pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Civil Code, a person whose rights have been violated may claim full compensation for the losses incurred, unless otherwise provided by legislative acts or an agreement.
Losses include expenses incurred or to be incurred by a person whose rights have been violated, the loss of or damage to that person’s property (actual damages), as well as income that the person would have received under ordinary conditions of civil commerce had their rights not been violated (lost profits).
This provision establishes that losses may consist of actual damages and lost profits.
The matters to be proven in the case include the fact that harm was caused and the amount of losses incurred.
Pursuant to Articles 72–73 of the CPC, the parties shall submit evidence, and each party must prove the circumstances on which it relies in support of its claims and objections.
The Plaintiff has not submitted admissible and reliable evidence proving losses in the amount of KZT 1,413,000.
The report issued by SB DC and submitted by the Plaintiff, based on an examination conducted on May 31, 2025, contains recommendations for bone grafting but cannot serve as evidence confirming that the Plaintiff incurred the claimed expenses, as it does not specify the cost of treatment.
Likewise, the treatment plan issued by “GD” Clinic, which indicates the amounts required for the Plaintiff’s implant treatment, cannot serve as evidence of losses incurred by the Plaintiff.
It is undisputed that the Plaintiff is compelled to restore her health by remedying the consequences of the inadequate dental care provided by the Defendant.
However, the cost of the necessary treatment has not been established by sufficient, reliable, and admissible evidence.
In view of the foregoing, the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of KZT 1,413,000 is denied.
Claim No. 3
Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On the Application by Courts of Legislation on Compensation for Moral Harm” (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulatory Resolution”), judicial protection of personal non-property benefits and rights belonging to individuals from birth or by virtue of law, as well as compensation for moral harm caused, constitutes one of the effective guarantees for the exercise of the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals and citizens.
Under paragraph 3 of the Regulatory Resolution, moral harm means the mental or physical suffering experienced by a citizen as a result of the unlawful violation, impairment, or deprivation of personal non-property benefits and rights belonging to that citizen.
The evidence collected in the case establishes a causal relationship between the clinic’s provision of dental services and the adverse consequences suffered by the Plaintiff. This gives rise to the Defendant’s obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for the moral harm caused.
In assessing the nature of the physical and emotional suffering experienced by the Plaintiff, the court takes into account that, instead of achieving the expected improvement in the aesthetic appearance of her front teeth, the Plaintiff experienced a deterioration in their condition.
The court has also taken into account the Plaintiff’s subjective assessment of the emotional suffering she endured.
Having objectively assessed the Plaintiff’s experiences and taking into account the degree of her mental and physical suffering and her living circumstances, the court, guided by the principles of fairness and reasonableness, considers that the claim for compensation for moral harm should be granted in part.
Pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 5 of Article 8 of the Civil Code, the court may reduce the amount of the Defendant’s liability, since the harm was caused unintentionally and compensation for moral harm is compensatory in nature and intended to remedy the consequences of the violation of the injured party’s personal non-property benefits and rights.
In determining the amount of compensation, the court considers the claimed amount of moral harm excessive and finds it appropriate to award KZT 150,000 in compensation for moral harm against the Defendant.
Pursuant to Articles 109 and 113 of the CPC, the Defendant shall reimburse the Plaintiff for court expenses incurred in paying the state duty and the representative’s fees, in proportion to the claims granted by the court, as well as the expenses incurred for the court-appointed expert examination.
At the same time, the expenses of KZT 10,000 for the SB DC report are not subject to reimbursement, as they were incurred in connection with establishing the need for restorative procedures.
Furthermore, the payment of KZT 98,000 made to the Defendant’s account and the receipt for medicines in the amount of KZT 12,595 dated May 18, 2025, were not claimed by the Plaintiff as losses. These amounts do not constitute court expenses and are therefore not recoverable.
Pursuant to Article 225 of the CPC, the court shall adjudicate the case within the scope of the claims submitted by the Plaintiff.
Guided by Articles 223–226 of the CPC, the court
HAS DECIDED:
The claim brought by A.G.T. shall be granted in part.
The following amounts shall be recovered from “SA” Limited Liability Partnership in favor of A.G.T.:
- KZT 260,000 in material damages;
- KZT 150,000 in compensation for moral harm;
- KZT 4,763 in court expenses for payment of the state duty;
- KZT 600,000 in expenses for the court-appointed expert examination;
- KZT 4,325 in expenses for notarization of the power of attorney;
- KZT 350,000 in expenses for the representative’s services.
The total amount to be recovered shall be KZT 1,369,088 (one million three hundred sixty-nine thousand eighty-eight tenge).
The remainder of the claim shall be denied.
By an additional judgment, the court further ordered:
A.G.T. shall pay “SA” LLP KZT 141,300 (one hundred forty-one thousand three hundred tenge) in reimbursement of the expenses incurred for the services of its representative.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases Declaration Decree Order Resolution Decision Report Conclusion Statement Conclusion Convention Contract Memorandum Methodology Norms Note Rules Program Charter Charter Article Commentary Resolution Regulations Protocol Draft Program Rules Messages
