Page 19 - Learnwell EVS
P. 19
p://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 25
surgical procedure in fact cured the appellant and saved her intestines,
bladder and ureter being damaged due to extension of the lesion. She had
also tried to justify the surgical removal of the uterus and ovaries, with
reference to the age and medical condition of the complainant.
37. The summery of the surgical procedure (dictated by respondent and
handwritten by her assistant Dr. Lata Rangan) furnished to the appellant
also confirms that no emergency or life threatening situation developed
during laparoscopy. This is reiterated in the evidence of respondent and
Dr. Lata Rangan. In her affidavit dated 16.2.2002 filed by way of
examination-in-chief, the respondent stated :
"15. The laproscopic examination revealed a frozen pelvis and
considering the extent of the lesion it was decided that conservative
surgery was not advisable and the nature of the problem required for its
cure hysterectomy.
16. When the Deponent decided to perform hysterectomy she told
Dr. Lata to intimate the mother of Ms. Samira Kohli of the fact that
hysterectomy was going to be performed on her. No complications had
arisen in the operation theatre and the procedure being performed was
in terms of the consent given by Ms. Samira Kohli herself."
In her affidavit dated 16.2.2002 filed by way of examination-in-chief, Dr.
Lata Rangan stated:
"14. I was in the Operation Theatre alongwith Dr. Prabha
Manchanda. The laproscopic examination revealed a frozen pelvis and
considering the extent of the lesion it was decided that conservative
surgery was not possible and that the nature of the problem required
performance of hysterectomy.
15. When it was decided to perform hysterectomy the deponent
was told by Dr. Prabha Manchanda to intimate the mother of Ms.
Samira Kohli of the fact that hysterectomy was now going to be
performed on her. No complications had arisen in the Operation
Theatre and the procedure conducted therein was in terms of the
consent given by Ms. Samira Kohli herself. I got the mother to sign the
Form too so that the factum of intimation was duly documented."
Thus, the respondent’s definite case is that on 9.5.1995, the respondent
had provisionally diagnosed endometriosis and informed the appellant;
that appellant had agreed that hysterectomy may be performed if the
lesion was extensive; and that in pursuance of such consent, reiterated in
writing by the appellant in the consent form on 10.5.1995, she performed
the AH-BSO removing the uterus and ovaries on finding extensive
endometriosis. In other words, according to respondent, the abdominal
hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (AH-BSO) was not
necessitated on account of any emergency or life threatening situation
developing or being discovered when laparoscopic test was conducted,
but according to an agreed plan, consented by the appellant and her
mother on 9.5.1995 itself, reiterated in writing on 10.5.1995. Therefore
the defence of respondent is one based on specific consent. Let us
therefore examine whether there was consent.
38. The Admission and Discharge card maintained and produced by
the respondent showed that the appellant was admitted "for diagnostic
and (?)operative laparoscopy on 10.5.1995". The OPD card dated
9.5.1995 does not refer to endometriosis, which is also admitted by the
respondent in her cross-examination. If fact, the respondent also admitted
that the confirmation of diagnosis is possible only after laparoscopy test :
"On clinical and ultrasound examination a diagnosis can be made to
some extent. But precise diagnosis will have to be on laparoscopy."
The consent form dated 10.5.1995 signed by the appellant states that
surgical procedure in fact cured the appellant and saved her intestines,
bladder and ureter being damaged due to extension of the lesion. She had
also tried to justify the surgical removal of the uterus and ovaries, with
reference to the age and medical condition of the complainant.
37. The summery of the surgical procedure (dictated by respondent and
handwritten by her assistant Dr. Lata Rangan) furnished to the appellant
also confirms that no emergency or life threatening situation developed
during laparoscopy. This is reiterated in the evidence of respondent and
Dr. Lata Rangan. In her affidavit dated 16.2.2002 filed by way of
examination-in-chief, the respondent stated :
"15. The laproscopic examination revealed a frozen pelvis and
considering the extent of the lesion it was decided that conservative
surgery was not advisable and the nature of the problem required for its
cure hysterectomy.
16. When the Deponent decided to perform hysterectomy she told
Dr. Lata to intimate the mother of Ms. Samira Kohli of the fact that
hysterectomy was going to be performed on her. No complications had
arisen in the operation theatre and the procedure being performed was
in terms of the consent given by Ms. Samira Kohli herself."
In her affidavit dated 16.2.2002 filed by way of examination-in-chief, Dr.
Lata Rangan stated:
"14. I was in the Operation Theatre alongwith Dr. Prabha
Manchanda. The laproscopic examination revealed a frozen pelvis and
considering the extent of the lesion it was decided that conservative
surgery was not possible and that the nature of the problem required
performance of hysterectomy.
15. When it was decided to perform hysterectomy the deponent
was told by Dr. Prabha Manchanda to intimate the mother of Ms.
Samira Kohli of the fact that hysterectomy was now going to be
performed on her. No complications had arisen in the Operation
Theatre and the procedure conducted therein was in terms of the
consent given by Ms. Samira Kohli herself. I got the mother to sign the
Form too so that the factum of intimation was duly documented."
Thus, the respondent’s definite case is that on 9.5.1995, the respondent
had provisionally diagnosed endometriosis and informed the appellant;
that appellant had agreed that hysterectomy may be performed if the
lesion was extensive; and that in pursuance of such consent, reiterated in
writing by the appellant in the consent form on 10.5.1995, she performed
the AH-BSO removing the uterus and ovaries on finding extensive
endometriosis. In other words, according to respondent, the abdominal
hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (AH-BSO) was not
necessitated on account of any emergency or life threatening situation
developing or being discovered when laparoscopic test was conducted,
but according to an agreed plan, consented by the appellant and her
mother on 9.5.1995 itself, reiterated in writing on 10.5.1995. Therefore
the defence of respondent is one based on specific consent. Let us
therefore examine whether there was consent.
38. The Admission and Discharge card maintained and produced by
the respondent showed that the appellant was admitted "for diagnostic
and (?)operative laparoscopy on 10.5.1995". The OPD card dated
9.5.1995 does not refer to endometriosis, which is also admitted by the
respondent in her cross-examination. If fact, the respondent also admitted
that the confirmation of diagnosis is possible only after laparoscopy test :
"On clinical and ultrasound examination a diagnosis can be made to
some extent. But precise diagnosis will have to be on laparoscopy."
The consent form dated 10.5.1995 signed by the appellant states that
