Negligence

Log 2-1-2009 Mrs. Suntanni Pika undergoes a cesarean delivery at a civic hospital. Log 9-1-2009 She recovers well and is discharged from the hospital. Log 12-4-2009 Mrs. Suntanni Pika suffers from excessive menstrual bleeding in two successive menstrual cycles and presents to the same civic hospital. She is prescribed tranexamic acid and hematinics. Log 24-12-2009 Mrs. Suntanni Pika hears about a free gynec camp in a nearby center. She is OK, but wants a free check up anyway. Though the civic hospital was also free, she decides to give this camp a go. They check her up, find a 1 cm diameter fibroid in her uterus. They advise her to undergo a laparoscopic hysterectomy. She likes the idea. They advise her to undergo tests for fitness to undergo anesthesia and surgery. She does that. Log 1-1-2010 Mrs. Suntanni Pika gives consent to undergo laparoscopic hysterectomy, and if required, vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy. They perform the procedure. After breaking some bands of adhesions laparoscopically, they start vaginal hysterectomy. They find some difficulty and perform abdominal hysterectomy. There is some injury to the urinary bladder because it is firmly stuck to the uterus. They call superspecialists who repair the injury. The patient is wheeled out of the operation theater after 11 hours of surgery. Log 19-2-2010 Mrs. Suntanni Pika is discahrged from the hospital alive and well, after having undergone extensive treatment with medicines, and repair of wound breakdown and finally skin grafting on the raw abdominal wound. Log 26-2-2010 Mrs. Suntanni Pika files a case in a court asking for a hefty compensation in a case of alleged negligence by her treating doctors. She also writes to the chief of the civic hospital to get her an expert opinion on her past treatment, thinking that will bolster her case. Log 28-2-2010 Mrs. Suntanni Pika is seen by a gynec in the civic hospital. There is nothing wrong with her except that she has a scar on her lower abdomen and no uterus in her pelvis. Her old records do not show any evidence of negligence. The consent had been proper. The procedure was as per established norms. The best of available doctors at the time had treated her. Complications are unfortunate, but not necessarily due to negligence. The report is handed over to her. Actually the court might have asked for the report directly. That would have been fair to both the parties. Anyway, no one criticizes the court. There must be legal reasons for asking the complainant to get the report. Log 1-3-2010 Mrs. Suntanni Pika writes to the chief of the civic hospital, and sends copies of the letter to the civic chief and a host of others. She complains that the doctors have given a false report in favor of the accused doctors. She demands review of her case by a panel of doctors in the civic institute under the chairmanship of the chief of the hospital. The chief is on vacation. The stand-in chief sends the letter to the concerned doctor for remarks. The doctor is upset because he has given a neutral and unbiased opinion. His boss is upset, because there are false allegations by the patient, and they had never been involved in the patient's treatment in any way. The civic hospital is not bound by any law to give any opinion on existence of any negligence. It is for the court to decide if there is any negligence. The civic doctors have to take out time from their work of treating patients to satisfy an unhappy patient, who is anyway unhappy about a third party. Now she is unhappy with them too because they do not give a report as she wants. This letter is sent back to the stand-in chief. Log 15-3-2010 Mrs. Suntanni Pika's letter to the civic chief reaches the civic hospital chief, asking him to provide necessary information about the complaint. The hospital chief asks the concerned doctors for an explanation. He has not seen their first response received by his office in his absence. So they hand over a copy of the original document. When he understands the whole situation, he gets the papers sent back to the civic chief and tells the concerned doctors to do nothing further, including worrying. The concerned head of department has learnt two lessons. One is how to handle a situation like this in future. The other is lawyers who advice such clients are of the worst unmentionable type.