A consumer forum has found a Mumbai-based gynecologist guilty of medical negligence in performing a hysterectomy on a Bhandup resident.
The additional consumer forum for Mumbai suburban district has directed Dr Manisha Mane of Soubhagya Hospital and Polyclinic at Bhandup to pay the married woman Rs 2.75 lakh as compensation.
According to the complainant, she had approached Dr Mane in January 2011 for a check-up. The gynecologist advised a hysterectomy and a surgery was performed the following month.
After being discharged from hospital, the woman noticed food particles in her urine and approached Dr Mane again. A second surgery was performed, but it proved unsuccessful.
The woman then sought help at Parel’s KEM hospital. She was informed that because of negligence during her earlier surgery, a recto-vaginal fistula had developed, creating complications.
A corrective surgery was performed at the civic hospital five months after the second surgery at the Bhandup clinic.
According to Dr Mane, the complainant showed no medical problems and was passing urine and stools normally during her stay in the hospital after the surgery. She claimed to have conducted all the required tests and examinations on the complainant.
The gynecologist further contended that even after the woman complained of discomfort, she examined her and noticed the recto-vaginal fistula and accordingly informed her and her family members that another surgery would be required.
Dr Mane said the complainant was reluctant and wanted to go to a civic hospital and therefore the corrective surgery could not be performed.
The consumer forum, however, did not find substance in the contentions of the medical practitioner. It observed that the doctor was under obligation to take more care, when the doctor herself claims that there is inherent risk of recto-vaginal fistula in laparoscopic surgery of hysterectomy. It observed that the very fact that fistula resulted after the surgery “speaks for itself” and the gynecologist was accountable for the same.
The forum further noted that the doctor had not explained this inherent risk to the patient while seeking her approval on the printed consent form.