The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I in Chandigarh recently dismissed claims of negligence pertaining to a total laparoscopic hysterectomy, ruling in favor of the hospital and its physician. The hospital was accused by the patient of doing the surgery without getting informed consent, but the court did not discover any proof of incompetence or poor care.
The situation began in 2021 when a patient at the treating hospital sought advice from Dr. Bansal due to an overactive bladder and weak pelvic floor muscles. Two days later, a hysteroscopy evaluation was planned per the doctor’s recommendation. The patient claimed that just prior to the evaluation at the operating room entry, she was forced to sign authorization and blank papers without being fully informed of the possible consequences of the treatment.
The patient said that the doctor removed several organs without getting the right authorization, including the uterus, cervix, sections of the vagina, lymph nodes, fallopian tubes, and ovaries. The consent paperwork for the surgery were also allegedly not signed. She said that rather than successfully removing the tumor, the surgery inflicted more harm, weakening her bladder and pelvic floor.
The patient’s grievances continued after the procedure. She claimed that high-dose radiation therapy, consisting of 23 external and 2 internal radiation sittings, was required as a result of the surgery. She contended that she would have chosen radiotherapy as her main course of treatment if she had been told that she would probably require it after surgery rather than chemotherapy.
The woman further argued that the doctor ought to have held off on discussing the results of the hysteroscopic examination and possible course of therapy until after she had recovered consciousness. Later, when she went to PGIMER in Chandigarh for treatment, she was given a diagnosis of acute grade 2 bladder prolapse along with other issues. The patient claims that PGIMER medical professionals verified her initial therapy was done negligently.
Following her visit to Fortis Hospital, the woman was diagnosed with eye-related problems, mental damage, rectocele, and cystocele—all of which were purportedly caused by the initial surgery.
All accusations were refuted by the hospital and Dr. Bansal, who claimed to have fully briefed the lady and her son on the treatment and possible consequences. They asserted that the patient signed the consent forms after being informed of the risks and dangers and that the necessity for a hysterectomy had been discussed in light of the results of the hysteroscopy.
As to Dr. Bansal, the hysteroscopy results showed a lobulated lesion, hence the surgery was carried out. The surgical team chose to execute a total laparoscopic hysterectomy along with bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, and bilateral omental sampling. In accordance with accepted medical practice, Dr. Bansal and a gynecologist carried out the surgery.
The histological investigation showed adenocarcinoma of the cervix and lower uterine region with uninvolved lymph nodes, and post-operative treatment was administered adequately. The hospital’s Tumor Board, which is made up of a variety of oncology doctors, suggested adjuvant chemo-radiation based on these findings. The woman was referred to medical and radiation oncologists for additional treatment after she declined chemotherapy.
The Consumer Commission examined the material and was unable to find any indication of carelessness or shortcomings in the hospital’s or its physicians’ services. The panel observed that the hospital had followed accepted medical practices over the course of treatment and that the plaintiff was unable to support her allegations.
In these circumstances, it is safe to conclude that there has been no failure in service on the part of the officers, and the entirety of the facts and circumstances point in favor of the officers, according to the commission. The case has little merit and could be dropped as a result. We hold without hesitation that the Complainant has not proven any failure in service on the part of the OPs, taking into account all the relevant facts and circumstances of the matter. Due to its lack of validity, the complaint is thus dismissed, with the parties responsible for covering their own expenses.
This decision brings to light a number of crucial problems related to medical negligence cases, most notably the significance of informed consent and unambiguous communication between patients and healthcare professionals. The case emphasizes how important it is for hospitals to keep thorough records of all patient interactions, documentation of consent forms, and other supporting paperwork in order to effectively combat claims of carelessness.
This instance highlights for patients how important it is to fully comprehend the processes and possible results before giving their consent for treatment. It also highlights how crucial it is to get second views and consider every available treatment option before making a decision.
The hospital and doctor were found not guilty in this case by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, UT Chandigarh, which serves as a reminder of the complexity of medical negligence allegations. It emphasizes the necessity of suitable balance between the rights of patients and the responsibilities of healthcare practitioners through clear communication, informed consent, and adherence to medical guidelines.
SOURCE:
SARKARI DOCTOR
