PANJIM: The expert committee of Goa Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), which went through the file submitted by Amit Prasad, has pointed out that Manipal Hospital had not provided laboratory and radiological investigation of the first admission done on May 2, 2019, to the committee.
The expert committee was constituted, as required by GMC doctors, when Prasad filed a case in the Consumer Redressal Commission against Manipal Hospitals, Goa. It consisted of Dr F P Noronha Head of surgery, Dr Andre Fernandes, Head of Forensic Medicine, Dr Jeevan Vernekar, Head of Radiology and Dr Francisco Couto, head of Pathology.
In its submission made before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Committee noted:
- No laboratory or Radiological Investigations of first admission done on 02/05/19 are enclosed in the file submitted to the committee
- There are no operative notes of the surgery made by the concerned surgeon and Manipal Hospital Goa
- There are no statements made by the concerned surgeon and Manipal Hospital Goa regarding the case to assess any surgical difficulty or otherwise encountered by the surgeon during or after laparoscopic surgery for appendicitis.
These comments assume immense significance in the light of Manipal taking recourse to medical literature that the stump of the appendix may remain, which may lead to stump appendicitis.
Manipal did not submit crucial documents that suggested any complication in the surgery (which was not mentioned before the Committee).
I thought doctors were like God: Amit Prasad
PANJIM: Amit Prasad, not yet 30, has recovered from what should have been a minor surgery for appendicitis. But he will take a long time to recover from the trauma of what he calls a “botched-up surgery”.
Speaking to O Heraldo, he has flatly refuted Manipal Hospital’s claim that during his admission from November 26-29, 2019, he was explained about the need for surgery. He was shocked and worried since his appendix was removed in May 2019, at the hospital itself.
Manipal Hospital in its statement to the Goa Consumer Redressal Commission, stated that since there were severe inflammatory charges observed in the USG report by Goa Medical College (GMC) and Dr Sardessai’s ultrasound clinic, as well as the CT scan done at Manipal Hospital. It suggested an appendicular stump, which was retrocaecal.
It further submitted that in the medical literature review, stump appendicitis results in more than 60 per cent of patients, following open surgery and 40 per cent in laparoscopic surgery. Manipal Hospital also contended that the patient’s family was informed of this.
Amit Prasad, however, told O Heraldo that he was not informed about this at all during his stay. Nor was he told of any planned treatment. He claimed that he was just administered antibiotics and a bill of Rs 41,277 was raised.
“My admission for observation was a mere farce and an excuse to extort money,” Prasad reiterated. “Only when I refused and during the time of my discharge, I was told that I would have to undergo another surgery for completion of appendectomy. Why any of this wasn’t discussed when I was admitted?” he asked.
The order of the Consumer Redressal Commission also mentions, “The Complainant states that despite having undergone tests it was never revealed to the Complainant that he needed to undergo an additional stump appendectomy, which was revealed only at the time of discharge of the Complainant.”
The hospital needs to be accountable for its negligence: Adv Clayton Fonseca
This is a fit case for further legal action, says Amit Prasad’s lawyer
PANJIM: Adv Clayton Fonseca, the lawyer for Amit Prasad told O Heraldo, “There is something called patient rights. After the first surgery, the discharge summary states that “Tolerated procedure well. Post-procedure no complication”.
Why didn’t the hospital even indicate, especially when it later said that getting access to the full appendicitis was difficult, indicate that there was a possibility of a “stump appendicitis” (remains post procedure)?
“The discharge summary statement of post-procedure neither mentions about complications, nor indicates even a remote possibility of any further issues. This is a fit case for further legal action and I’m waiting for instructions from my client,” Adv Fonseca said.