On Thursday, Maharashtra’s Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed a gynaecologist and a private hospital to pay Rs 16.70-lakh compensation to a 78-year-old woman. The commission directed the gynaecologist and a private hospital to pay the compensation after they wrongly removed woman’s right ureter during a medical procedure in 2013.
According to Indian Express, the complainant, Shyamalee Gupta, was experiencing slight menopausal bleeding and approached Lilavati Hospital on December 9, 2013. She had an appointment with gynaecologist Ranjana Dhanu, who advised her to be admitted for a minor procedure of dilation and curettage to determine the cause of the bleeding. Gupta was admitted to the hospital on December 11, 2013, and the procedure was performed on her the next day. Samples from the procedure were given to the histopathology department on the same day.
Later the woman on December 12, 2013, started complaining of breathlessness and shivering and was moved to the Intensive Care Unit. Gupta’s family was told that there was a possible medicinal allergy and it was under control. The next she was discharged from the hospital but had to be re-admitted again. A CT scan two days later revealed that Gupta’s right ureter was not visible and was ‘missing’, Gupta’s lawyer submitted to the commission. The consequence of the removal of the ureter was that the urine from her right kidney was not being passed to the urinary bladder but collecting in the bodily cavity and affecting other vital organs.
Gupta’s lawyer, Anubha Rastogi, the leading daily that, the hospital was aware subsequently that the material removed from her body was not endometrial tissue, but ‘did not take positive steps to ensure further damage to her’. In the complaint, Gupta mentioned that she had spent around Rs 20 lakh on her medical expenses and had a recurring cost of Rs 10 lakh per year towards her care. She had sought a compensation of Rs 90 lakh.
Lawyer Shriram Shirsat, representing the hospital, told Indian Express, the commission has not held it responsible for negligence or deficiency in service but relied upon a previous judgment to hold it liable for compensation to the complainant.
