Ureters Damaged During Hysterectomy Surgery: Consumer Court directs Doctors to Cough up Rs 28.5 lakh Compensation

It has further been clarified by the State Consumer Court that if the doctors fail to pay the entire amount within a month, an interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum would be added to the amount.

The case goes back to 2010 when the patient, 38 years of age, hailing from Dombivli, had approached the treating doctor for treatment as she was suffering from severe body ache and acute exhaustion due to her menstrual cycle as she used to have heavy bleeding during periods.

After following the treatment advised by the doctor she again visited the doctor getting no relief. Following this, the doctor advised performing a hysterectomy operation for removing the uterus immediately and the treating doctor along with another doctor performed the surgery back on November 11.

It had been alleged by the complainant that both the doctors had performed the surgery without her consent and without explaining the risks associated with the surgery. She further alleged that both of her ureters, the tube-like structure that carry urine from the kidney to urinary bladder, were permanently damaged because of the negligence on the part of the operating doctors.

Also Read: Kidney Removed instead of Stone: Consumer Court holds hospital vicariously liable for medical negligence, directs Rs 11.23 lakh compensation

Following the hysterectomy surgery, the patient started suffering from abdominal pain, vomiting, burps, and gaseous infection. The treating doctor then prescribed medicines and tests. However, as the medicines couldn't provide her relief, after 42 days, the patient was referred to a urologist, who informed the patient that she had developed kidney complications because of the damaged ureters and consequently she had to undergo another surgery and consequent treatment at Sion Hospital. At Sion, the patient had to undergo another surgery for placing an artificial urinary system in her body and still now she is under treatment at the Sion Hospital due to facing urine infection, swelling on legs etc continuously, adds Mid Day.

When the patient approached the Sion Hospital for abdominal laparotomy back in 2011, the medical negligence came to the light. The operating doctor at Sion explained to the patient that abdominal surgery was the option and during the procedure the surgeon cut around 20 cm of the intestine and attached a tube to both the ureters.

Afterwards, the patient along with her husband approached another doctor for expert opinion and the doctor was quoted stating by the daily, "D&C report did not indicate malignancy of cancer. Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not advisable to the patient at the age of 38. The consent form taken before surgery was also not as per the standard protocol."

Another expert reportedly opined, "The patient's thyroid test was normal but she was given medicine for it."

Following this, the patient along with her husband approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission back in 2012 and also filed complaints before the Maharashtra Medical Council and erstwhile Medical Council of India, now National Medical Commission (NMC).

As per the latest media report by the Times of India, in her complaint, the patient stated that the damage of her ureters couldn't have occurred in a surgical procedure "unless the surgeon is incompetent" to handle surgical instruments "which clearly shown negligence on the part of both doctors".

The counsel appearing for the complainant told TOI, "The victim approached me in 2012. I approached the court after collecting all evidence related to the case and have fought this legal battle for around 10 years."

"The surgery was unnecessary but it was advised and carried out. Dr Mahajan failed to physically examine the patient and performed surgery without anasthetist's fitness report and standard consent of the patient. We kept on fighting the case, and on October 20, we finally got the final order," the advocate told Mid Day.

During the legal battle the patient had recently lost her husband to COVID. She told the daily, "It's tough for a layman to get justice. My whole family struggled for this. Many doctors also refused to give expert opinions. We have invested 11 years in this matter, but our persistent effort gave us success. I hope this will change some scenarios in future."

Meanwhile, the doctors have denied any kind of negligence on their part. While commenting on the matter, the first treating doctor told TOI, "The Maharashtra Medical Council and National Medical Council, Delhi, have given me a clean chit, saying there is no medical negligence. I can't comment on the judgment of court as I have not yet received the certified order copy."

"I've not done any wrong surgery and judges have issued an oral order. Once I receive a written copy about reason for fine, I will decide on whether to approach a higher court," said another doctor who had also operated on the patient.