Proposed Law Changes Will Affect Dentists' Indemnity Arrangements

Details: Published: Monday, 12 May 2025 11:02; Written by Peter Ingle; Hits: 3346

A proposed change to the Dentists Act 1984 could dramatically alter the dental indemnity market.

A Bill proposing this change will have its second reading on June 13^th. It has been proposed by Chris Vince, Labout Co-op MP for Harlow, who became involved after hearing of the death of a Harlow resident. The amendment seeks to change the wording around what constitutes an acceptable form of indemnity.

At present section 26A(2) of the 1984 Act, as amended in the 2014 order, reads: “For the purposes of this section, an ‘indemnity arrangement’ may comprise…a policy of insurance…an arrangement made for the purposes of indemnifying a person” or “a combination of the two.” If amended the new wording will be “For the purposes of this section, an ‘indemnity arrangement’ should comprise of a policy of insurance.” This would appear to make discretionary cover, as currently provided by many indemnifiers, unacceptable.

The case that brought dental indemnity to Chris Vince’s attention was one involving failed implant work. The procedure was unsuccessful, and the patient was left in severe pain. Despite being awarded £117,378 in damages and legal costs at the county court in 2019 he never received this. The indemnifiers for the dentist who carried out the work declined to provide cover.

In 2022, unable to stand the pain and feeling as though he had “lost faith in the system”, the patient took his own life. The coroner said that the long-term consequences of the unsuccessful dental surgery impacted significantly on his mental health and ability to cope with daily life.

The opinions of dental indemnifiers on the question of insurance backed versus discretionary products are divided along predictable lines.

Neil Taylor of Taylor Defence Services has written: "Both personally and as a director of TDS I have advocated the outlawing of discretionary dental indemnity.

Whilst it is good to read the passing of the first reading of the Bill in the House of Commons on 5/3/25 to make dental indemnity an all insurance product, it is equally frightening to read the backstory to this Bill. Waiting to outlaw discretionary indemnity until a patient takes their own life is quite horrific.

It really is time for Dentists to take notice and ensure they are covered by an insurance product to treat patients. This harrowing story has been coming for a long time. I first advocated the outlawing of discretionary indemnity in 2012."

A spokesperson for the MDDUS told GDPUK that:

“We have every confidence that our model of discretionary indemnity is appropriate, responsive and more than satisfies the indemnity needs of our dental members. We do offer insurance products to dental groups if those are preferred.

“Dentists should remember that regardless of whether they hold discretionary indemnity or a policy of insurance, if the cover provided does not state explicitly that dental treatment carried out abroad is covered, then they would not be indemnified or insured in any event. That was the key issue in the case that has led to the MP’s actions in parliament.”

Raj Rattan, Dental Director at Dental Protection, said: “As the matter debated in Parliament involves a practitioner who is not a Dental Protection member, we do not have all of the details and therefore consider it neither appropriate nor helpful to comment on it.” He went on to point out that the organisation had been both providing robust and reliable protection for members and patients with access to compensation, following a successful claim, for over 130 years. He gave examples of requests not meeting the threshold criteria such as cases where the member is not indemnified for the type of work or was not a member at the time an incident occurred, and pointed out that commercial insurers would also conduct similar basic eligibility checks.

He concluded: “For anyone wanting to better understand the professional protection options available, we would recommend reading the GDC’s guidance on indemnity and insurance which sets out a checklist of questions for dental professionals to consider when making a decision about what protection is most appropriate for them.”

Please note: None of the indemnifiers quoted in this piece were involved in the case described above.

My comments

Brian Westbury 1 day 15 hours

Indemnity/Insurance

Having worked over 25 years with a discretionary indemnifier and the last 6 years with an insurance based firm, I cannot recall ever that discretion was used to not assist unless the registrant was not a member or not in the correct category. However, remember that the discretionary is usually occurrence based and when you retire it still covers you for problems from your membership period whereas insurance is (usually) claims made and you should buy run off cover. I am currently assisting a practice owner where the dentist has left and is untraceable and the patient is saying that the practice owner is vicariously liable. The dentist had a claims made policy.

You need to be logged in to leave comments.

s2sdefault