Mumbai: Evaluating the consent documents provided to a patient before a surgery, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that the ophthalmic surgeon failed to disclose risks and potential complications to a patient who subsequently lost her vision post surgery in 2011.“…opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service in not obtaining a proper and valid informed consent from the complainant before subjecting her to the surgery in question,” the state consumer commission said in its March order . Ordering Dr Ashok T Bhole to pay a compensation of Rs 7.5 lakh to Dombivli resident Rajani Malik, the commission held that being content with a bare signature on a pre-printed consent form did not satisfy the requirements of proper authorisation.The commission further held that had the complainant been told that the surgery could result in permanent loss of vision, or even loss of the eye, it could not be said that she would still have agreed to undergo it at the doctor’s hands. “By failing to inform her [Malik] of this risk and merely obtaining her signature on a printed form, the opposite party has not discharged his duty of disclosure. This, in our view, clearly amounts to deficiency in service,” the commission said.Detailing the lack of critical medical information in the paperwork, the commission stated, “The consent form placed on record by the opposite party is a pre-printed proforma carrying only the signature of the complainant. There is no mention anywhere in the said form of the specific nature of the surgery proposed to be performed on the complainant, the attendant risks, the possible complications, or, most importantly, of the fact that the complainant may, as a consequence of the procedure, lose vision in, or even lose, the operated eye.”However, the commission found no evidence to support claims of medical negligence. “The records of the subsequent treating hospital, by themselves, only establish that the complainant developed a serious post-operative complication and was thereafter treated for the same; they do not, on their own, establish that the said complication was attributable to any negligent act or omission on the part of the opposite party,” it added.Malik consulted Dr Bhole at Heramb Eye Hospital for a vision-related ailment and underwent eye surgery in July 2011. Following the operation, Malik developed severe pain, redness, and progressively diminishing vision. When the condition worsened, she consulted another hospital and was diagnosed with serious post-operative complications. Despite further treatments, Malik permanently lost vision in the operated eye and subsequently sought legal recourse. Malik moved the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2013.
