Page 3 - Learnwell EVS
P. 3
p://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 25
12.7.1995. There was a rejoinder dated 18.7.1995 from the respondent
and a further reply dated 11.9.1995 from the appellant. On 19.1.1996 the
appellant filed a complaint before the Commission claiming a
compensation of Rs.25 lakhs from the Respondent. The appellant alleged
that respondent was negligent in treating her; that the radical surgery by
which her uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes were removed without her
consent, when she was under general anesthesia for a Laparascopic test,
was unlawful, unauthorized and unwarranted; that on account of the
removal of her reproductive organs, she had suffered premature
menopause necessitating a prolonged medical treatment and a Harmone
Replacement Therapy (HRT) course, apart from making her vulnerable to
health problems by way of side effects. The compensation claimed was
for the loss of reproductive organs and consequential loss of opportunity
to become a mother, for diminished matrimonial prospects, for physical
injury resulting in the loss of vital body organs and irreversible
permanent damage, for pain, suffering emotional stress and trauma, and
for decline in the health and increasing vulnerability to health hazards.
5. During the pendency of the complaint, at the instance of the
respondent, her insurer - New India Assurance Co. Ltd, was impleaded as
the second respondent. Parties led evidence - both oral and documentary,
Appellant examined an expert witness (Dr. Puneet Bedi, Obstetrician &
Gynaecologist), her mother (Sumi Kohli) and herself. The respondent
examined herself, an expert witness (Dr. Sudha Salhan, Professor of
Obstetrics & Gynaecology and President of Association of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists of Delhi), Dr. Latha Rangan (Doctor who assisted the
Respondent) and Dr. Shiela Mehra (Anaesthetist for the surgery). The
medical records and notices exchanged were produced as evidence. After
hearing arguments, the Commission dismissed the complaint by order
dated 19.11.2003. The Commission held : (a) the appellant voluntarily
visited the respondent\022s clinic for treatment and consented for diagnostic
procedures and operative surgery; (ii) the hysterectomy and other surgical
procedures were done with adequate care and caution; and (iii) the
surgical removal of uterus, ovaries etc. was necessitated as the appellant
was found to be suffering from endometriosis (Grade IV), and if they had
not been removed, there was likelihood of the lesion extending to the
intestines and bladder and damaging them. Feeling aggrieved, the
appellant has filed this appeal.
The appellant\022s version :
6. The appellant consulted respondent on 9.5.1995. Respondent
wanted an ultra-sound test to be done on the same day. In the evening,
after seeing the ultrasound report, the respondent informed her that she
was suffering from fibroids and that to make a firm diagnosis, she had to
undergo a laparoscopic test the next day. The respondent informed her
that the test was a minor procedure involving a small puncture for
examination under general anesthesia. The respondent informed her that
the costs of laparoscopic test, hospitalization, and anesthetists charges
would be around Rs.8000 to 9,000. Respondent spent hardly 4 to 5
minutes with her and there was no discussion about the nature of
treatment. Respondent merely told her that she will discuss the line of
treatment, after the laparoscopic test. On 10.5.1995, she went to the clinic
only for a diagnostic laparoscopy. Her signature was taken on some blank
printed forms without giving her an opportunity to read the contents. As
only a diagnostic procedure by way of a laparoscopic test was to be
conducted, there was no discussion, even on 10.5.1995, with regard to
any proposed treatment. As she was intending to marry within a month
and start a family, she would have refused consent for removal of her
reproductive organs and would have opted for conservative treatment,
had she been informed about any proposed surgery for removal of her
reproductive organs.
12.7.1995. There was a rejoinder dated 18.7.1995 from the respondent
and a further reply dated 11.9.1995 from the appellant. On 19.1.1996 the
appellant filed a complaint before the Commission claiming a
compensation of Rs.25 lakhs from the Respondent. The appellant alleged
that respondent was negligent in treating her; that the radical surgery by
which her uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes were removed without her
consent, when she was under general anesthesia for a Laparascopic test,
was unlawful, unauthorized and unwarranted; that on account of the
removal of her reproductive organs, she had suffered premature
menopause necessitating a prolonged medical treatment and a Harmone
Replacement Therapy (HRT) course, apart from making her vulnerable to
health problems by way of side effects. The compensation claimed was
for the loss of reproductive organs and consequential loss of opportunity
to become a mother, for diminished matrimonial prospects, for physical
injury resulting in the loss of vital body organs and irreversible
permanent damage, for pain, suffering emotional stress and trauma, and
for decline in the health and increasing vulnerability to health hazards.
5. During the pendency of the complaint, at the instance of the
respondent, her insurer - New India Assurance Co. Ltd, was impleaded as
the second respondent. Parties led evidence - both oral and documentary,
Appellant examined an expert witness (Dr. Puneet Bedi, Obstetrician &
Gynaecologist), her mother (Sumi Kohli) and herself. The respondent
examined herself, an expert witness (Dr. Sudha Salhan, Professor of
Obstetrics & Gynaecology and President of Association of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists of Delhi), Dr. Latha Rangan (Doctor who assisted the
Respondent) and Dr. Shiela Mehra (Anaesthetist for the surgery). The
medical records and notices exchanged were produced as evidence. After
hearing arguments, the Commission dismissed the complaint by order
dated 19.11.2003. The Commission held : (a) the appellant voluntarily
visited the respondent\022s clinic for treatment and consented for diagnostic
procedures and operative surgery; (ii) the hysterectomy and other surgical
procedures were done with adequate care and caution; and (iii) the
surgical removal of uterus, ovaries etc. was necessitated as the appellant
was found to be suffering from endometriosis (Grade IV), and if they had
not been removed, there was likelihood of the lesion extending to the
intestines and bladder and damaging them. Feeling aggrieved, the
appellant has filed this appeal.
The appellant\022s version :
6. The appellant consulted respondent on 9.5.1995. Respondent
wanted an ultra-sound test to be done on the same day. In the evening,
after seeing the ultrasound report, the respondent informed her that she
was suffering from fibroids and that to make a firm diagnosis, she had to
undergo a laparoscopic test the next day. The respondent informed her
that the test was a minor procedure involving a small puncture for
examination under general anesthesia. The respondent informed her that
the costs of laparoscopic test, hospitalization, and anesthetists charges
would be around Rs.8000 to 9,000. Respondent spent hardly 4 to 5
minutes with her and there was no discussion about the nature of
treatment. Respondent merely told her that she will discuss the line of
treatment, after the laparoscopic test. On 10.5.1995, she went to the clinic
only for a diagnostic laparoscopy. Her signature was taken on some blank
printed forms without giving her an opportunity to read the contents. As
only a diagnostic procedure by way of a laparoscopic test was to be
conducted, there was no discussion, even on 10.5.1995, with regard to
any proposed treatment. As she was intending to marry within a month
and start a family, she would have refused consent for removal of her
reproductive organs and would have opted for conservative treatment,
had she been informed about any proposed surgery for removal of her
reproductive organs.
