Punjab

Patiala

CC/15/12

Preeti Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bindi Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dinesh Sharma

07 Apr 2015

ORDER

Preeti Sharma Vs. M/s  Bindi Nursing Home                    

 

7.4.2015:Present: Sh.Dinesh Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

 

                   ORDER

1.       It is alleged by the complainant that on account of the complainant having suffered pain in ANO rectocele region , she had approached the Ops on 1.4.2014 and the Ops after her medical examination advised her for the surgery. She was operated for rectocele repair and discharged on 2.4.2014.It is further averred that the discharge slip issued by the Ops does not bear the registration number accorded to the Ops by the MCI or SMCI and thus, there is a violation of rule 1.4.1 of MCI. She had paid Rs.16000/- to the Ops towards operation charges, medicines etc. Besides Rs.1000/- towards the test fee. She had also to purchase the medicines worth Rs.3500/-.

2.       After the discharge from the hospital, the complainant had again suffered from the same very symptoms and therefore, she approached the Op and complained about the matter but the Op did not bother for the same and stated that the same was the complication having arisen after operation and that she will be alright within 15-20 days.

3.       The complainant having not recovered from the problem she approached the doctors in Mata Kaushalya Govt.Hospital, Patiala for her medical checkup, where a team of the doctors advised the complainant for operation of the rectocele region.

4.       It is further averred that the ops had not advised the complainant for the prevention of post surgical complications. The surgery performed by the ops proved un-successful, which fact has been confirmed by the doctors in Mata Kaushalya Govt. Hospital, Patiala, who advised the complainant about another surgery for the same very problem, which shows the sheer negligence on the part of the Ops. Had the surgery been performed with due care and caution, the same problem would not have occurred again. Thus, the complainant has suffered the pain, harassment and the mental agony and accordingly she has brought this complaint against the Ops seeking a compensation in a sum of Rs.five lac.

5.       The complainant has produced on file the copy of the discharge slip showing the date of admission as 1.4.2014 and date of discharge as 2.4.2014, issued by the Op namely Bindi Nursing Home,Ajit Nagar, Patiala, in which the diagnosis has been recorded as :’Rectocele’ and in the column meant for operation, it is recorded: Rectocele repair. Under the heading Treatment given on hospital, it is recorded : “Rectocele repair done under S/A”. Under the heading Followup, it is recorded: “After 10 days”.

6.       The complainant has also produced the copy of OPD slip bearing No.102564 dated 8.7.2014 issued by Mata Kaushalya Govt. Hospital, Patiala, in respect of the complainant. In the History, it is recorded: “Rectocele repair done in Bindi Hospital but still patient is having mainly Rectocele X X X . Vaginal length is shallow. Advised rectocele repair. The OPD slip does not show that the rectocele was done in Mata Kaushalya Govt. Hospital, Patiala. Only the medicines were prescribed on 11.7.2014.

7.       It is simply alleged by the complainant that the operation of the complainant was not performed by the Ops with due care and caution and therefore, the problem has reoccurred . Nothing is explained by the complainant as to in what manner the Ops lacked in taking the care and caution while performing the repair of the rectocele. Simply because the problem of the rectocele had occurred again would not mean that there was any negligence on the part of the Op in performing the repair of the rectocele. We have down loaded the text from webMD  on repair of rectocele  or enterocele.  Under the heading How Well It Works, it is provided : “Not much is known about how well the surgery works over time. The surgery is more likely to be successful if the woman avoid constipation, does not go through pregnancy and delivery and does not have any other pelvic organ prolapsed”. Under the heading Risks, it is provided: “Risks of rectocele and enterocele repair are uncommon but include:

• Urinary retention
• Bladder injury
• Bowel or rectal injury
• Infection
• Painful intercourse
• Formation of an abnormal connection or opening between two organs(fistula)”

Under the heading What To Think About, it is provided: “Pelvic organ prolapse is strongly linked to labor and vaginal delivery. So you may want to delay surgical repair of a rectocele or enterocele until you have finished having children.

Surgical repair may relieve some , but not all, of the problems caused by a rectocele or enterocele.

• If pelvic pain, low back pain, or pain with intercourse is present before surgery, the pain may still occur after surgery.
• Symptoms of constipation may return following surgery.
• The success rate is lower if you have had previous pelvic surgery or radiation therapy to the pelvic.

You can control many of the activities that contributed to your rectocele or enterocele or made it worse. After surgery:

• Avoid smoking
• Stay at a healthy weight for your height
• Avoid constipation
• Avoid activities that put strain on the lower pelvic muscles, such as heavy lifting or long period of  standing”.

8.       Similarly, we have down loaded an article from the site Whole Woman Village Forum on ‘rectocele recurring after surgery almost 6 months ago  ‘and in reply to a query posed by a woman that she had had a hysterectomy when she was 38 years old within  last 6 months she had surgery for a cycele and rectocele surgery. The bulge for the rectocele was back and so was the pressure and everything that had gone with it. The surgery was awful and  very painful.She asked if anybody could tell her anything about what to do? It was stated in reply, “Part of not knowing what to do is’ is shock. Re prolapse was probably completely un expected but sadly it is very common. You may not have been told this before your operation. Informed consent is a very rubbery problem”.

9.       Thus, from the aforesaid literature discussed by us, it would appear that surgical repair may relieve some, but not all, of the problems caused by rectocele or enterocele going to show that the repair of the rectocele is not fool proof and the repetition of the rectocele repair is possible.

10.     It is the allegation made by the complainant that the operation of the rectocele repair done by the Ops was not successful. In the case of the citation Surinder Kumar (Laddi) & Anr. Versus Dr.Santosh Menon & Ors. III(2000)CPJ 517, the Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh observed, “It will not be out of place to mention that doctors only treat whereas it is in the hands of the Almighty to cure. Each failure or unsuccessful operation cannot be considered as a  negligent act of the doctor. Something more is required to be established by the complainants to prove negligent act of the doctor”.

11.     Nowhere in the OPD slip issued by the Mata Kaushalya Govt. Hospital, Patiala, it is noted that the rectocele repair done by the Ops had not been successful because of any negligence on the part of the Op. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no primafacie case for any medical negligence on the part of the Op has been made out. In the case of citation Kannan V.R.Vithayathil House Versus Sree Sudheendra Medical Mission Hospital and others 2002(2)CLT 479 of the Hon’ble Kerla State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Thiruvananthapuram, relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant himself, it is observed that when a complainant alleges negligence against any institution or a doctor, the burden of proof is on the complainant. As discussed earlier, the complainant has failed to elaborate the lack of care and caution to be taken up by the Op in the matter of performing the operation of the repair of the rectocele. Therefore, we do not find any reason to take cognizance of the complaint against the Op on the basis of the mere allegation without being supported by any expert opinion. The complaint is rejected accordingly. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules.

                   File be consigned to the record room.

 

                             Member                Member                President