- The bench –B. N. Agarwal, R. V. Raveendran, P. P. Naolekar
- The Petitioner/ Appellant – Samira Kohli
- The Plaintiff/ Respondent –Dr.Prabha Manchanda and anr.
Issue
- Whether the consent given by Ms. Samira Kohli (appellant) for a diagnostic surgery, be constructed as a consent for performing additional surgeries?
- Whether consent given by appellant’s mother for performing abdominal Hysterectomy and Billateral Salpingo-oopherectomy (AH-BSO) valid?
- Is Dr.Prabha Manchanda liable for tortious act of negligence in performing her duties as a surgeon and consequently liable to pay damages?
The contentions-
Appellant-
Samira was suffering from a prolonged menstrual bleeding for which she consulted Dr.PrabhaManchanda. After an ultrasound examination, doctor advised her to undergo a laparoscopic test for further diagnosis. The appellant alleged that her consent for the surgery was taken on a black form and she wasn’t given an opportunity to read its contents. When the appellant was under the influence of general anaesthesia, the respondent took her mother’s consent for an extensive surgery which includes removal of her reproductive organs. The appellant also alleged that her mother’s consent was also gained through misrepresentation that it is the only way to save her life.
Respondent-
Dr.Prabha Manchanda (respondent) clinically examined the appellant and found fibroids in the uterus and endometrial cyst on both sides. The respondent considering the seriousness of the ailment, recommended her a laparoscopic examination. Doctor also informed the appellant that if removing cysts and fulgurating the area becomes unmanageable, she will have to perform hysterectomy and remover her reproductive organs. The doctor followed the standard medical procedure of removing uterus and ovaries as it is the safest option for the appellant considering her age. Dr.Lata Rangan explained the proposed procedure and consequences and then took appellant’s consent for the surgery. The hysterectomy was performed addressing to the appellant’s request for a permanent cure.
Final Judgement-
The court held that consent given for a specific treatment cannot be considered as consent for some other treatment only except when the life of the patient is in danger. Similarly, Samira’s consent for a diagnostic surgery is not valid for any additional surgery like hysterectomy.
The court also held Samira’s mother’s consent for radical surgery invalid as Samira is a competent adult and there was no medical emergency at the time of surgery. Also, the appellant was temporarily unconscious and the respondent could have waited for her to regain consciousness and take decision of removal of her reproductive organs on her own.
The court acquitted Dr. Prabha Manchanda of all the charges framed against her for negligence. The respondent having found endometriosis, processed removal of uterus and ovaries in order to provide a permanent relief to the appellant. The surgery could have been postponed but the appellant most likely would have agreed for the surgery in future as it is the most suitable option in this case. Therefore, respondent acted for benefit of the appellant and in good faith. The respondent was asked to pay a compensation of 25,000 rs and bear all the treatment cost of the appellant for unauthorized AH-BSO surgery.
The supreme court of India has alsolaid down certain principles relating to consent in this case.
