No Evidence Of Negligence Or Deficiency: Chandigarh District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Ivy Hospital Alleging Surgery Without Consent

The bench held that the Complainant failed to provide any evidence of negligence or deficiency in the medical care provided by the doctors at the hospital.

Brief Facts:

The Complainant, suffering from an overactive bladder due to weak pelvic floor muscles, consulted at Ivy Hospital. After reviewing her medical history, the doctor at the hospital planned a hysteroscopy evaluation scheduled. On the day of the procedure, the Complainant was required to sign an authorization paper and a blank medication orders page just ten minutes before the evaluation at the entrance of the operation theatre. She signed these documents in a state of fear and anxiety without a thorough explanation of the procedure. Post-surgery, she discovered that, instead of just conducting the hysteroscopy, the doctor performed a Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy, removing her uterus, cervix, part of the vagina, lymph nodes, fallopian tubes, and both ovaries without her informed consent. This radical surgery was done even though the hysteroscopy was inconclusive about the tumour's nature and location.

The Complainant was initially led to believe that the hysteroscopy findings necessitated the emergency removal of her organs. However, she later learned that the hysteroscopy did not provide clear results, and the decision for the extensive surgery was made without prior consultation. The biopsy post-surgery showed healthy organs and minimal cancer presence, suggesting the radical procedure was unwarranted. Consequently, she underwent multiple radiation sessions and faced severe post-operative complications, including bladder prolapse and abdominal issues, which significantly impacted her quality of life. Despite her attempts to seek help from the doctor, she received no satisfactory response, which made her seek treatment at PGIMER, Chandigarh, and Fortis Hospital, Mohali. The Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (“District Commission”), and filed a consumer complaint against the hospital and the doctor.

The doctor and the hospital contended that the Complainant and her son were informed in detail about the procedure and potential outcomes, including the need for a hysterectomy depending on the hysteroscopy findings. They claimed that the Complainant signed the consent forms, understanding the risks and complications involved. The doctor stated that the surgery was based on the hysteroscopy findings, which suggested a lobulated lesion. He argued that post-operative care was appropriately provided and that subsequent issues were related to radiation therapy.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission held that the surgery performed on the Complainant was conducted with proper consent. It reviewed documents which included the consent forms for the surgery/major procedure signed by the Complainant and her son. These documents detailed the surgery and the associated risks which indicated that the Complainant was informed and had given consent before the procedure. Thus, it held that the consent was duly obtained by the doctor and the hospital before performing the surgery.

The District Commission also considered the Complainant's reliance on consultations with practitioners from Fortis Hospital. However, these consultations were not supported by affidavits from the consulted doctors. Therefore, it held that the recommendations for prolapse repair surgeries from Fortis Hospital could not be conclusively linked to the surgeries performed by the doctor at Ivy Hospital.

Moreover, the District Commission noted that the doctor made efforts to treat the Complainant to the best of his ability. It found no evidence of negligence or deficiency in the medical care provided by the doctors at the hospital.

Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.

Case Title: Ritu vs Dr Vijay Bansal and Anr.

Case Number: CC/769/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: Neha Ahluwalia

Advocate for the Respondent: Munish Kapila and Inderdeep Singh