Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Complainant alleged that the consent form was filled up by others and the contents were not explained to them. So, it is an invalid consent form.

In the Discharge Summary it was written that diagnosis was sub fertility operation, findings were diagnostic Hysteroscopy Survical Canal Antiverted and deviated towards left with normal Uterine Cavity. It was also mentioned there, that there was diagnostic Hysteroscopy, D/C, specimen sent for TB-PCR and BACTEK Culture, Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis, bilateral Tubal clipping and removal of caseous material.

According to the established Medical Practice Anti TB treatment can always be initiated when there is Laparoscopic evidence of TB in spite of negative TB PCR, Culture and HPE report.       

The Complainant was advised to continue with anti TB therapy at the time of discharge from the Opposite Party/Nursing Home. But the Complainant never bothered to follow up with the Opposite Party/Doctor. The Complainant and her husband never turned up for any follow up. According to the Opposite Parties the Complainant was treated as per accepted medical protocol. Tubal Block is common after Tuberculosis infection. The complainant was already diagnosed with TB and was under medication for the same. The Doctors were  on visit  regarding the findings of the previous HSG Report, which was shown to the Complainant during her first visit to the Opposite Party Doctor. So, advice was given for repeating the same investigation. It would reveal from the medical literature that in cases of active TB, HSG, being a blind investigation, may flare up the illness in comparison to Laparoscopic intervention, which is more accurate and definitive as it provides an opportunity to physically see in own eyes as opposed to HSG, which gives just a shadow image. According to the OPs, both the complainant and her husband did not prefer to go for IVF or Surrogacy. But they finally agreed to consider this treatment at the time of counselling for obtaining consent on that day before surgery at Microlap under procedures and their prognosis was explained, in detail, to them.

The matter of Laparoscopic Tubal surgery and Hysteroscopy were duly noted in the prescription, which was categorically explained to the patient and her husband. It is denied that the Complainant was compelled to sign on the blank form and she was not made to sign on any such complaint form. The Laparoscopic features of advance Pelvic TB were noted, which required further anti TB treatment. So, the Opposite Party No. 2/Doctor advised to initiate anti TB therapy and prescribed Tablet AKT 4.

Although the Laboratory Reports were found negative, but the Opposite Party No. 2/Doctor during the surgical procedure noted presence of Pelvic Tuberculosis. During the diagnostic laparoscopy the presence of TB in the Pelvis was very much evident. This specimen tested was from endometrial tissue of Uterus. The patient was suffering from TB in Pelvis region prior to visiting the OPs for treatment. The Tubal Clipping was done with consent of the Complainant and it was done to avoid any damage to the Uterus. The Tubal Clipping was done to prevent further damage and further spread of infection to Uterus.

Under these circumstances, the Opposite Party/Doctor had some doubts regarding findings of HSG report which were shown by the complainant during her first visit to Opposite Party No. 2/Doctor. According to the Ld. Advocate as per established procedure of medical treatment in cases of active Tuberculosis HSG is a blind investigation, which might flare up illness in comparison to Laparoscopic investigation. Laparoscopic investigation is much more accurate and definitive, since it provides an opportunity to physically see with own eyes as opposed to HSG which gives just a shadow image.