Rajasthan doctors goof up, remove woman's uterus instead of treating kidney ston

Rajasthan doctors goof up, remove woman's uterus instead of treating kidney ston
PRADEEP KAUSHAL

JAIPUR, NOV 19: A 25-year-old Dalit woman who was admitted to Sawai Man Singh Hospital here for the removal of kidney stones ended up losing her uterus yesterday, thanks to the callousness of the medical staff.

What makes matters worse is that the woman had tried to argue with the surgical staff right before the operation since she felt something was amiss, but was told to shut up.

The matter went up to Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot, who ordered the suspension of an assistant professor of Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Dr R.K. Jenaw, following a preliminary inquiry.

The victim, Vimla Regar, had been admitted to the unit of Dr D.N. Kalla in Ward No 3AB of the hospital for the removal of kidney stones. Another Vimla, aged 45, had been admitted to the unit of Dr J.M. Mehta in the same ward for the removal of her uterus. Both had to undergo operations at the theatre located in front of the ward on the same day.

Vimla's husband Padam Chand Regar said that while he was away at the blood bank trying to arrange blood for his wife, the staff moved her to the operation theatre and started preparing her for surgery. Finding the preparations a little too elaborate, she suspected something amiss and pointed out to the staff that she had to undergo only a minor operation, while their actions indicated that they were getting ready for major surgery. She was told to shut up and administered anaesthesia. In the operation that followed, her uterus was removed. It was her husband who discovered that the patients had been mixed up when he found the other Vimla's husband's name on the patient slip after his wife was brought out of the theatre.

Regar first tried to lodge a complaint with the police post at the hospital,but was turned away and was asked to approach the hospital superintendent.The superintendent was unavailable and Regar lodged a complaint with hisdeputy, Dr K.L. Chhangani. In the meanwhile, the doctors took Vimla back in to the theatre and took all records into their custody.

Regar said that they started pressurising him to keep quiet. By then, however, they matter had reached the Chief Minister. Gehlot asked Sawai Man Singh Medical College director-principal S.R. Dharker to immediately conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a report so that responsibility for the mix up be fixed. Dr Jenaw was placed under suspension following Dr Dharker's report.

* Ironically, the incident comes at a time when the Rajasthan government has laid down norms for instituting a prompt inquiry into any complaint of negligence against a doctor or staff by the family of a patient who dies at a government hospital.

The rules, according to official sources, have been fixed in accordance with the guidelines given by the Rajasthan High court in its decision in the P.N. Bhandari versus the Rajasthan government' case on July 17, 1997.

The guidelines say that in the event of a complaint by a friend or familymember of the deceased, the record of treatment be immediately seized and thecomplainant be provided with its copy. The director-principal of themedical college concerned may keep the record in his custody and getthe comments of the doctor and the staff concerned the same day.

If needed, the director may constitute a medical board, which would includea professor of pathology or forensic science, for a post-mortem examinationwith the concurrence of the complainant. The report of the medical boardshould be given to the complainant within 24 hours and this must be followed up with the constitution of an inquiry committee, which will have to complete its job within 15 days.

The committee must include at least two professors of the discipline concerned and it would be empowered to summon the staff and question them.

The report must then be forwarded to the government along with the action proposed. A copy of the report would have to be given to the complainant, who, if not satisfied, would have the right to appeal to the government. The government, in that case, could set up a committee to conduct an inquiry. This exercise notwithstanding, the complainant retains the right to approach a court of law.