LexSAMIRA KOHLI versus DR. PRABHA MANCHANDA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 719 j> SAMIRA KOHLI A v. DR. PRABHA MANCHANDA & ANR. (C.A. No. 1949 of 2004) JANUARY 16, 2008 8 (B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.) > _,_ Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Medical Negligence: c Deficiency in service - Doctor performing radical surgery without obtaining consent from patient resulting in removal of her reproductive organs - Compensation - Complaint rejected by National Consumer Commission - Correctness of - Held: Right of patient with regard to his/her body inviolable - It would D be unreasonable for a doctor to start particular treatment! surgery without the consent of patient unless it was considered necessary to save life/preserve health of the patient- Consent of patient for diagnostic procedure/surgery cannot be construed E as permission to perform therapeutic surgery - Appellant- . victim admitted in the clinic of respondent only for diagnostic purposes - Before the victim regained consciousness, radical surgery performed resulting in removal of her uterus and ovaries - Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that she F was informed before performing the surgery- When the patient was still at the diagnosis state, her mother's consent for radical surgery was no consent in the eyes of law- Moreover, consent by mother cannot be treated as valid/real consent - National Commission failed to notice that the question was not about the correctness of the decision to remove uterus and ovaries G -t but failure to obtain consent for removal of the organs - Laparoscopic examination revealed that the victim was suffering from endometriosis - It could be treated either by conservative treatment or by hysterectomy - Moreover, 719 H 720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A appropriateness of treatment procedure does not make the '"": treatment legal in the absence of consent therefor - Performance of such surgery without consent of the patient was an unauthorized invasion and interference with the body of the victim, hence, a tortuous act of assault and battery B amounting to deficiency in service - But, in view of mitigating circumstances, interest of justice would be served by denying the respondent fee charged for surgery and by granting compensation of Rs. 25, 0001- to victim for unauthorizedly ,... performing surgery - Tort - Battery - Negligence - ~ c Compensation. Medical Profession - Catch in all clauses - Scope of. Words and Phrases: 'consent', 'real consent' and 'unfound consent' - Meaning D of. Appellant, an unmarried woman, aged 44 years r visited the clinic of first respondent for an ultrasound test. The test was conducted and, on the basis of the ultrasound report, the respondent allegedly informed her E that she was suffering from fibroids and for further confirmation a laproscopic test was required to be conducted. On the next day, when she went to the clinic for a diagnostic laproscopy, allegedly her signatures on blank printed forms were obtained by an Assistant doctor F of respondent without giving her opportunity to read the contents. When she was under general anesthesia, respondent rushed out of the operation theater and told her aged mother that the patient had started bleeding profusely and in order to save her life, extensive surgery G need to be performed and her signatures were obtained on some papers without waiting the appellant to regain j ·~ consciousness and radical surgery was performed on her, resulting in removal of her reproductive organs. When she protested, the respondent rudely responded. H According to the appellant, she was going to marry within • SAMIRA KOHLI v. DR. PRABHA MANCHANDA & ANR. 721 a month, therefore, she would have refused consent for A removal of her reproductive organs and would have opted for constructive treatment, had she been informed about the surgery. Appellant lodged a complaint in the Police Station against the respondent for their negligence and unauthorizedly removing her reproductive organs. The B appellant also filed a complaint before the National Consumer Commission claiming a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs from the respondent for negligently treating her resulting in loss of her reproductive organs and consequential loss of opportunity to become a mother, c for diminished matrimonial prospects, for physical injury resulting in the loss of vital body organs and irreversible permanent damage, for pain, sufferi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.