Area: Informed Consent (Medical Negligence)
Facts:
Samira Kohli, a 44-year-old single woman, met with Dr Manchanda, complaining about prolonged menstrual bleeding. She was admitted and signed the consent form for admission to the hospital, medical treatment, and also surgery.
The surgical consent form said, “diagnostic and practical laparoscopy. Under general anesthesia, she was exposed to a laparoscopic examination.
While Samira was unconscious and undergoing examination, Dr Lata Rangan (another doctor) came out of the operation theatre and took the patient’s mother’s consent for a hysterectomy.
Dr Manchanda removed the uterus (abdominal hysterectomy), ovaries, and fallopian tubes of the patient after obtaining her mother’s consent.
Samira Kohli lodged a petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission demanding Dr Manchanda’s award of Rs 25 lakhs. She argued that the doctor was unethical and that the experimental surgery was done without her permission, by which her uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes were extracted. The compensation sought was for the loss of her reproductive organs, reduced marriage chances, permanent harm to the body, loss of opportunity to become a mother, as well as painful emotional trauma.
Issues:
Can the doctor be held liable for her act?
Observation:
The doctor to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a treatment. The consent must be real and valid.
Consent given only for diagnostic procedures, cannot be considered consent for therapeutic treatment. There can be a common consent for both.
The doctor must supply ‘adequate information’ to the patient to facilitate a balanced judgment.
Adequate information requires i. nature and procedure of treatment, ii. Alternatives, iii. Outline of substantial risks, iv. Adverse consequences of refusing treatment.
No need to disclose remote or theoretical risks that may confuse or threaten patients.
Factors like the mental condition of the patient, nature of the treatment, risk and consequences of the treatment.
Judgment:
The National Commission dismissed the lawsuit, noting that the hysterectomy had been done with sufficient care and that the woman had received treatment at the clinic voluntarily. The Supreme Court overruled the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and held the doctor liable for malpractice. The Supreme Court held that while additional surgery was of benefit to the patient in terms of saving time, suffering, pain, and expenses, this was no ground for defense.
コメント