C. JAYAPAL REDDY Vs. G. S. RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Charles Clay, who performed the first hysterectomy in year 1843 in Manchester, UK, must be in distress. Today, his remarkable surgical invention, which has given hope & cure to millions of women, has turned in to a scandalous business. Hysterectomy is the most common non pregnancy-related major surgery performed on women worldwide. The present complaint filed against allegations of medical negligence necessitates to discuss crucial issue of unscrupulous hysterectomies in India and worldwide.

(2.) The complainant took his wife, Smt. C. Kusuma Reddy, aged about 36 years to the OP-2 Dr. Padmini in the month of July 2010, for her complaints of abdominal pain and menstrual disturbances and other complaints. Since birth of 1st child, in 2006 she was a known patient of OP, Dr. Padmini, and consults for her menstrual complaints, since the year 2009. The patient, Kusuma, was examined by OP and was diagnosed as a case of fibroid uterus with Endometriosis. She was advised treatment of Tab. Danogen -50 mg and Tab. Pyricontin 10mg for 30 days. Thereafter, on 13.07.2010, during the follow up visit, she was subjected for ultrasound scanning examination and advised the total abdominal Hysterectomy. The complainant contended that the operation was conducted on his wife, without the valid consent of his wife or himself. Due to abdominal pain, fear and disturbed status of mind, she could not give informed consent for the said operation; and the OP hospital took his signatures on the blank form. It was also stated that resistance of the complainant and without any serious problem, the OP Dr. Padmini, has performed the total abdominal Hysterectomy with Bilateral Salpingo-Opherectomy with Adhesiolysis. The complainant has requested the management to provide information relating to operation theatre documents and copy of case sheet, but OPs turned a deaf ear to it. Even after the operation, Dr. Padmini did not inform anything about the said operation of hysterectomy. OP has removed both the fallopian tubes and ovaries unnecessarily, despite alternative methods to treat such patient, and to remove the fibroids, were available. The complainant had only one child and he wanted to have a second child by IVF or test tube baby method with surrogate mother, but as his wife lost her ovaries after operation by OP, he had to search for an ovum donor and incur heavy expenditure. Therefore, with these allegations and due to negligent attitude of the OP, his young wife lost her reproductive organs, therefore, no chance of second child also. His wife had to suffer lot of serious side effects due to early hysterectomy and removal of ovaries. The complainant contended that he had worked in Nigeria and intended to travel to New Zealand; also he had plans to settle in European or Western Country, in which cost of living and medical expenditure will be higher, hence he is seeking heavy compensation from OP. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint with different prayers, for directions and relief as stated in the complaint.

(3.) Notice upon OPs was served by registered post, but they have not filed any written version within 45 days. Therefore, as per provision of Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short CP Act) OPs right to file the written version is forfeited.