The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, UT Chandigarh, cleared a hospital and its doctor of allegations related to conducting a total laparoscopic hysterectomy without the patient’s consent. The complaint, filed by a patient claiming medical negligence, was dismissed as the court found no evidence supporting the allegations.
The case occurred in 2021, when the patient, suffering from an overactive bladder and weak pelvic floor, consulted Dr. Bansal at the hospital. After an initial consultation, Dr. Bansal recommended a hysteroscopy evaluation, scheduled for two days later. The patient alleged that she was asked to sign consent forms just minutes before the procedure, without a thorough explanation of the potential outcomes. She claimed that the doctor removed several organs without her consent, which worsened her condition and necessitated further treatments.
The patient argued that instead of proceeding with the surgery immediately, the doctor should have waited to discuss the hysteroscopy results with her while she was conscious. After the surgery, she was diagnosed with various complications, including bladder prolapse and inflammation, by doctors at PGIMER, Chandigarh, and Fortis Hospital. She claimed that the initial surgery created additional health issues, leading to further treatments, including 23 sessions of external radiation and 2 sessions of internal radiation.
On the other hand, the hospital and Dr. Bansal maintained that they had fully informed the patient and her son about the procedure and its possible outcomes. They argued that the consent forms were signed with an understanding of the risks involved. They decided to perform the surgery based on the findings of the hysteroscopy, which indicated a lobulated lesion. The surgery included a total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral pelvic lymph node dissection, and omental sampling.
The doctor also asserted that post-operative care was provided according to standard guidelines. The histopathological test revealed that the patient had adenocarcinoma of the cervix and lower uterine segment, with uninvolved lymph nodes. The pathologist’s findings were discussed in a tumor board meeting at IVY Hospital, which recommended adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation. However, the patient refused chemotherapy and opted for radiotherapy at IVY and Max Hospital, Mohali.
The consumer court, after reviewing the evidence, noted that the consent forms for the surgery were duly signed by the patient and her son. The forms detailed the surgery and its potential complications. The court also rejected the patient’s claims based on consultations with other doctors, as these claims were not supported by affidavits.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/ Susmita Bhandary)
