3 min readMumbaiMay 3, 2019 01:19 AM IST
First published on: May 3, 2019 at 01:19 AM IST
(Representational image)
THE STATE Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on Thursday directed a gynaecologist and a private hospital to pay Rs 16.70-lakh compensation to a 78-year-old woman after her right ureter was wrongly removed during a medical procedure in 2013.
The complainant, Shyamalee Gupta, was experiencing slight menopausal bleeding and approached Lilavati Hospital on December 9, 2013. She had an appointment with gynaecologist Ranjana Dhanu, who advised her to be admitted for a minor procedure of dilation and curettage to determine the cause of the bleeding. Gupta was admitted to the hospital on December 11, 2013 and the procedure was performed on her the next day. Samples from the procedure were given to the histopathology department on the same day.
According to submissions made by Gupta’s lawyer, Anubha Rastogi, on December 12, 2013, Gupta started complaining of breathlessness and shivering and was moved to the Intensive Care Unit. Gupta’s family was told that there was a possible medicinal allergy and it was under control. The next day, Gupta was discharged from the hospital but had to be re-admitted again. A CT scan two days later revealed that Gupta’s right ureter was not visible and was ‘missing’, Gupta’s lawyer submitted to the commission. She then had to use a urine-bag and subsequently, in February 2014, she underwent surgery in Hinduja Hospital and her functional right kidney was removed.
The consequence of the removal of the ureter was that the urine from her right kidney was not being passed to the urinary bladder but collecting in the bodily cavity and affecting other vital organs.
Gupta also told the commission that even when she was admitted after the procedure, the histopathology department had informed the gynaecology department that the labelling of the sample given and the sample as viewed by the naked eye did not match.
Gupta told the commission that the hospital was aware subsequently that the material removed from her body was not endometrial tissue, but ‘did not take positive steps to ensure further damage to her’.
Gupta had said in her complaint that she had spent around Rs 20 lakh on her medical expenses and had a recurring cost of Rs 10 lakh per year towards her care and consequential medical and health issues. She had also said that the incident took a toll on her mental health. She had sought a compensation of Rs 90 lakh.
During the proceedings before the commission, the hospital distanced itself from the alleged acts of negligence of the doctor, stating that she is a consultant and not an employee with them. It also claimed that the hospital is not in control of the acts committed by a consultant.
Lawyer Shriram Shirsat, representing the hospital, said the commission has not held it responsible for negligence or deficiency in service, but relied upon a previous judgment to hold it liable for compensation to the complainant.
Lawyer Gopinath Shenoy, representing the doctor, said he is yet to read the detailed order of the commission and hence would not want to comment.
(Representational image)
Share
