MANJULABEN VINODBHAI PATEL vs HARSHIDA K.PATEL

COMPLAINANT has filed this complaint against the respondent for alleged negligence and deficiency in medical care and sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 12% interest, cost and any other award that she may be entitled to.

THE complainant says she is lawfully wedded wife of Vinodbhai, serving as a Section Supervisor in Telegraph Office at Ahmedabad having a minor son and minor daughter. Complainant Manjulaben consulted Dr. Harshidaben (date not mentioned) for her (about 13 week) pregnancy. Dr. Harshidaben advised sonography. Manjulaben approached Dr. Harshidaben with sonography report on 27.5.1995 and 30.5.1995. Doctor advised her medical treatment. She also consented for MTP operation in writing. She was admitted for said operation on 31.5.1993 around 11.00 a.m. for Dilation and Evacuation which according to complainant is other name for MTP operation (page 2). Operation was started at 2.30 p.m. on 31.5.1995. Anaesthesia was conducted by Dr. R.K. Patel. During surgery after one hour of start of operation husband was called in operation theatre and Doctor asked the patient''s blood group and demanded husband to provide rare blood group (A-ve) from husband for incessant bleeding. Complainant also alleges rude behaviour of Doctor. Complainant alleges that it is the duty of Doctor to investigate and procure blood for patient and this should have been done in advance which the Doctor did not do. THE husband of complainant with difficulty procured blood bottle and supplied it to Doctor for transfusion to his wife. Complainant says that there were Dr. Harshidaben, Dr. R.K. Patel, Dr. Dilipbhai Shah and Dr. Ramanbhai Patel in the operation theatre for this "Normal operation" (page 5) and operation took 4 hours though complainant was told it would take only half an hour. THE husband is said to have noted that Dr. Harshidaben was confused and did not know what to do (page 6). After operation, complainant''s husband was informed that operation was done and uterus was removed for saving the life of the patient as there was excessive bleeding. Complainant claims that her husband told Dr. Harshidaben that consent was given only for MTP and Hysterectomy - removal of uterus - was done without the consent through pre-operatively after examination and verifying sonography the Doctor did not suggest the possibility of removal of uterus. The complainant also states that the Doctor told them that it was enough that patient survived (page 7). Post operatively patient was kept overnight in operation theatre only and not shifted to ward upto 3 p.m. of 1.6.1995. Bleeding had continued post operatively and needed 4 units of blood post operatively. 25 bottles of glucose were given. Complainant was kept in Hospital for 17 days and was discharged on 16.6.1995.

Complainant further states (page 8) that she is from a poor family and because she had two children wanted MTP for third pregnancy but at no stage had entertained the idea of uterus removal thereby becoming permanently unable to conceive, more so because of uncertainty of life. No satisfactory explanation was given to husband''s query to Dr. Shah as to her negligent management of case including removal of uterus.

IT is al leged that in all complainant had to spent about Rs. 3,000/- for medicines. Opponent was required to pay Rs. 1,200/- as operation charges. Complainant further states that the opponent issued a certificate in which it is mentioned that complainant was operated for D & E and that she had to undergo emergency surgery for hysterectomy for bleeding per vagina on 31.5.1995. Certificate also indicates that complainant was admitted for D & E. Complainant''s husband alongwith one Mr. K.J. Makwana had approached Dr. Shah to enquire about the chances of future problems mat patient may have following hysterectomy operation. They were assured that patient was safe. It is alleged that since "mouth" of uterus was not removed, complainant is likely to get cancer there and that non-removal of mouth of uterus is incomplete operation and that amounts to negligence.

THE complainant alleges that respondent and her husband after initially asking fees of Rs. 12,000/- settled for Rs. 6.000/- and refused to give discharge card, case papers, reports or receipt of amount paid. THE respondent also allegedly forced the husband and complainant to sign blank consent forms. THE respondent and her husband are also alleged to have threatened various consequences to complainant and her husband. Complainant and her husband did not concede to the threat and did not sign the blank papers as above. Thus, according to complainant Doctors ignored medical ethics and behaved barbarously and created tension to complainant (page 14). Complainant further states that with the help of police the opponent, her husband and an "outsider" under threat and pressure got certain papers signed by complainant and her husband. This included the so-called statement of the complainant. Complainant submits that operation was disastrous and medical misadventure and resulted in failure. The operation was not safe and satisfactory. Complainant submits that as per routine medical practice uterus was not sent for biopsy test which smacks the sinister design of opponent to gloss over the negligence of respondent (pages 16-17).

THE complainant alleges that opponent did not do many tests required before operation (listed on page 17) and given the reasons as to why they should be done. As per the complainant the opponent has deliberately misplaced various papers pertaining to treatment of complainant and non-supply should draw adverse inference against respondent (page 19). THE complainant further goes on to highlight the role of biopsy of uterus and its significance and means to say that respondent had failed deliberately to do her duty(page 19).

THUS the complainant says that with above all counts, the opponent is negligent and compensation be awarded as sought in the complaint. To substantiate the above claims, the complainant has filed documents from page 24 to 55. The respondent Dr. Harshidaben in her written statement mentions about her qualification (MD, DGO), experience -15 years and her place of practice (Exh. 8, page 56). She also states that complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and deserves to be rejected. That she has not been negligent as alleged. Complaint also deserves to be rejected on the basis of non joinder of parties i.e. New India Assurance Co., as in case of liability to pay the said company is indemnifier to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs (page 57).

The respondent states that the complainant consulted her on 27.5.1995 and 30.5.1995 and was aware about detailed medical history, blood group and physical condition (page 58). The respondent instructed about pre- operative procedure, consent letter for D & E was signed but since case papers are not available, a blank consent form is attached (page 58). The respondent operated complainant under general anaesthesia but after D & E procedure uterus went into "ATONIA" and continued to bleed (page 59). When all medical and physical methods failed to contract uterus and stop bleeding, after consulting two senior professionals Dr. Dilip Shah and Dr. Raman Patel, as a last resort to save the life of the complainant, the respondent had to undertake the procedure of hysterectomy (page 60). However, before proceeding to hysterectomy, "relatives" of complainant were called into the operation theatre and were explained the situation and consent for hysterectomy was obtained. The decision to do hysterectomy in complainant was unanimous among respondent. Dr. Dilip Shah and Dr. Raman Patel. It was also agreed by the above three Doctors that in view of continuous bleeding and deteriorating condition of patient, they should proceed with hysterectomy (page 63) because the husband of complainant was away. His consent was obtained on phone (page 66) and operation of hysterectomy was done. Patient was kept in operation theatre for intensive post operative care (page 62) and the patient was not wrongly detained in Hospital by keeping her for 17 days (page 62). The respondent relies on medical case papers on which particulars of patient''s health and treatment appears (pages 62, 63).

THE respondent denies all charges levelled against her in the complaint including not giving of case paper, reports, receipts etc. Also denied are charges of threat to complainant and her husband and that they were forced to sign blank consent forms etc. THE respondent says she was never negligent and there was no deficiency in service as alleged. Complainant is not entitled to the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- or of any other award (page 70). Respondent states that she gave best of medical treatment to complainant with delegence and competence. It is misfortune that unforeseen and unavoidable complications had arisen in complainant''s case for no fault of opponent (page 70). In the above circumstances respondent submits for dismissal of complaint and heavy cost (page 71).

RESPONDENT has produced various papers in support of her claim (from page 72 to 92). It was also argued by respondent that complainant suffered from a condition known as "Uterine atonia", a condition which is unforeseeable and beyond the known controllable factors. This happens in any operative or non operative condition of uterus like normal delivery, removal of tumour from uterus or following D & C or D & E operation. In the present condition the same thing happened and inspite of best possible efforts the uterus remained in atonic phase and continued to bleed profusely and therefore the only safe course to adopt in the best interest of patient''s life remained hysterectomy. This view was shared by two eminent Gynaecologists (Dr. Dilip Shah and Dr. Raman Patel). It is also not true to say that inadequate operation was performed as will be proved by the documents submitted by complainant (page 44) where hysterectomy has been done is noted. There is no comment of inadequacy of operation. This conclusively proves that respondent was not negligent or has not shown any deficiency in medical service to complainant. On perusing all the documents, it is clear that said Manjulaben went to Dr. Harshidaben for medical termination of pregnancy and due to problems mentioned in the complaint and written statement by respondent ended up having hysterectomy. Main crux of contentions by complainant is that hysterectomy was done without consent and that hysterectomy had to be done because of "misadventure by respondent and medical negligence of Dr. Harshidaben". Dr. Harshidaben says that hysterectomy had to be done to save the life of patient and that she had obtained opinion of two senior consultants in field. Dr. Dilip Shah and Dr. Raman Patel who also concurred with her opinion of need for emergency hysterectomy. Dr. Harshidaben further contends that consent of husband was obtained on phone and subsequently written consent also was obtained but because of loss of papers she was not able to produce the same. She - Dr. Harshidaben also says that to substantiate her claim of loss of papers and consent she had informed the police who conducted investigation and recorded statements of complainant and her husband wherein they have admitted having given consent. Complainant has not produced any evidence or affidavit of her could be witnesses, Arunaben Darji and Mr. Makwana, literature or evidence of expert witness to substantiate her claim nor has she cross examined said Dr. Harshidaben, police or Dr. Dilip Shah and Dr. Ramanbhai Patel inspite of sufficient opportunities given to her and her learned Advocate. The onus is on the complainant to prove her complaint positively, which, according to us, she has failed.

WE are, therefore, of the opinion that complainant has failed to prove the complaint and hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Dr. Harshidaben has asked for heavy cost. WE, looking to the entire merits of the case and its outcome, are not inclined to grant the same and hence there will be no order as to costs.

THE complaint is dismissed. THEre will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.