Doctor and hospital fined Rs 5 lakh for negligence during hysterectomy
The Tamil Nadu District Consumer Commission has directed a gynecologist and a hospital to jointly pay Rs 5 lakh as compensation for medical negligence after a woman suffered a ureter injury and subsequent fistula following a laparoscopic hysterectomy. The commission also awarded Rs 25,000 as litigation costs to the complainant.
In its order on June 25, the bench of president A Meenakshi Sundaram and member R Vijaya stated, “The injury sustained by the complainant was only because of the negligent operation performed by the doctor, and therefore we find that there is negligence on the part of the doctor, and the hospital, being the hospital, is also held equally responsible for the same.”
The complainant underwent a laparoscopic total abdominal hysterectomy at Rajam Nursing Home on November 8, 2022. Immediately after surgery, she passed blood-stained urine. After discharge, she experienced severe pain, blood in urine, and continuous urinary leakage, requiring adult diapers. Despite repeated complaints, the doctor did not properly investigate her symptoms.
On November 17, her condition worsened. The doctor ordered a CT scan but did not disclose the results, instead referring her to the Department of Urology at JIPMER Hospital. The referral letter stated that the CT scan revealed a right distal ureteric injury approximately two cm long, caused during the hysterectomy.
At JIPMER, she was diagnosed with the ureter injury and underwent cystoscopy and laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation with a stent. However, urinary leakage persisted, and she later developed a vesico-vaginal fistula, requiring open fistula repair surgery on March 23, 2023. During this period, her husband passed away from kidney cancer, and she was unable to care for him due to her own medical complications.
The hospital and doctor denied negligence, arguing that the patient had signed consent forms acknowledging possible complications. They also claimed that the fistula may have developed due to her failure to attend follow-up consultations at JIPMER.
The commission rejected these arguments, noting that the injury was a direct result of negligent surgery. It held both the doctor and hospital equally liable for deficiency in service and medical negligence.
