Removal Of Ovary Without Consent, New Delhi Commission Orders Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital To Pay Rs. 5 Lakh Compensation, 50k Litigation Cost

Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II in New Delhi bench comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital liable for negligence in treatment and removal of complainant’s right ovary which subsequently led to permanent disability, hormonal imbalances, and psychological distress. The bench noted that medical professionals are liable if they fail to perform their duty with reasonable skill and competence or if they deviate from the accepted medical standard. Brief Facts of the Case: Meenu Vaid (“Complainant”) developed a cyst in her left ovary and consequently, she consulted Prof. Uma Rai from Moolchand Khairati Ram Hospital (“Hospital”). Instead of removing the cyst, the doctor negligently removed her right ovary. Aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi (“District Commission”) against the hospital and the doctor along with United India Insurance and Oriental Insurance (“Insurance Companies”), seeking damages for physical loss, permanent disablement, mental pain, expenses, and deprivation of services as a wife and mother. The complainant presented ultrasound reports and expert opinions as evidence to show the presence of both ovaries before the surgery. She claimed that the doctor manipulated documents, concealed facts, and even informed her family that the right ovary had been removed. She alleged that the removal of her right ovary caused permanent disability, hormonal imbalances, and psychological distress. On the other hand, the hospital contended that the surgery was properly conducted, and the right ovary was not present before the surgery. They argued that the ultrasound reports and surgery records do not conclusively establish the presence of the right ovary. They claimed that any discrepancy might have arisen from the records' misinterpretation or a resident doctor's mistake. They denied negligence, manipulation of documents, or any unfair trade practice. Observations by the Commission: After considering the documentary evidence, expert opinions, and arguments presented by both parties, the District Commission found discrepancies in the statements provided by the hospital and the doctor. The District Commission noted the contradictions between the ultrasound reports and their explanations. By referring to Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1, the District Commission reiterated that doctors are expected to exercise a reasonable degree of care, skill, and knowledge while treating patients. If the doctor fails to meet this standard, it amounts to medical negligence and the doctor can be held liable for the same. The importance of obtaining informed consent from the patient before a medical procedure was also emphasised by the District Commission in light of Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 651. Based on the aforementioned case laws and the evidence on record, the District Commission opined that the hospital and the doctor had been negligent in the treatment and removal of the complainant's ovary, which resulted in permanent disablement and mental anguish to the complainant. Therefore, the District Commission held the hospital and the doctor liable for negligence and directed them to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to the complainant for the physical and mental suffering caused due to their medical malpractice. The District Commission also ordered them to bear the legal expenses amounting to Rs. 50,000, incurred by the complainant. Case: Meenu Vaid vs. Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Case No.: CC/129/2012 Advocate for the Complainant: None Advocate for the Respondent: None Click Here To Read/Download Order

Removal Of Ovary Without Consent, New Delhi Commission Orders Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital To Pay Rs. 5 Lakh Compensation, 50k Litigation Cost

Smita Singh

Tags