Review: On the company website representing [redacted], I was informed I would be having a Mini-gastric- bypass as a revision to my previous [redacted]. I asked Leili numerous times and was assured that the bypass to bypass was in fact the MGB. I woke from surgery with Dr.[redacted] apologizing for not being able to complete this scheduled MGB, stating something about "imagine a freezer stuffed with food and you cannot get to the item you want" as I was just coming off of anesthesia I was confused so he apologized again for not completing the surgery I selected MGB, and instead choose one he thought appropriate because "we were already 3 hours into the surgery and didn't want to finish up by not doing anything" I am furious! I am confused hurt mislead and taken advantage of!
I never agreed to have a distal bypass with no stomach reduction!!!!!!! This is day 5th day and I am constantly on the toilet, having severe diarrhea and am scared to eat! I am severely swollen with edema of face hands feet and stomach!!! I want a refund or I want them to make this right!Desired Settlement: Refund or repair at their cost for everything
--please Read all attached documentation--Nothing in the records presently located in the files of Sourcis, Inc. indicates that Sourcis, Inc. or any of its authorized agents ever told the complainant explicitly that complainant would specifically receive a MGB. The consent form that the complainant initialed explicitly described the procedure as “Revision; Gastric Bypass and/or to so any other procedures that in their judgment may be advisable for my wellbeing including such procedures as are considered medically advisable to remedy conditions discovered during the above procedure.” Sourcis, Inc. does not know what conversations the complainant had with the surgeon beforehand, but clearly, based on the complainant’s own complaint, the doctor in his own judgment felt it was in the best interest of the complainant’s own well being to perform a less risky revision. Sourcis, Inc. is a facilitator of medical procedures; not a provider. The doctor performing the surgery is always responsible for making medical decisions based on his experience and expertise in the best interest of his patient at the time of every procedure. Complainant was abundantly advised of this and explicitly consented to proceeding with the procedure. In fact, because a RouxenY and a MGB are two completely different procedures, in order to perform a “revision” of a RouxenY to a MGB, the RouxenY would first have to be completely reversed. The surgery to reverse RouxenY gastric bypass is more difficult than a RouxenY itself, so the reversal surgery is not readily performed. For this reason it is highly unlikely that anyone from Sourcis, Inc. or the hospital or doctor told complainant that she would be getting a MGB done. The complainant claims “On the company website representing Mexico Bariatric Center, I was informed I would be having a Minigastric bypass as a revision to my previous RNY.” The website for Mexico Bariatric Center includes a page dedicated to information about the types of revisional surgeries offered by MBC doctors (a copy of the webpage is included herewith as Attachment G). Nowhere on the webpage is the term “Minigastricbypass” ever used. What is included on the page is a pronounced text box with a disclosure similar to the one sent to complainint in the November 16, 2015 email. Specifically it states: “QUICK FACTS RNY revision is associated with lower success rate and higher complication rate than the original RNY procedure. Only 4560% of patients will lose 50% of their excess body weight. The revision of openincision gastric bypass surgeries done is even more of a Page 4 of 6 challenge for surgeons with less success rates. Adhesions or scar tissues make it hard for the surgeon to get to GI track and be able to perform the surgery.” Complainant’s claims that she was told about the minigastric bypass on respondent’s website is not and cannot be true. As reflected in the Consent Form, Sourcis, Inc. has a very liberal refund policy that allows a customer to get a refund whenever a surgery is cancelled or postponed during the preoperative stage. However, once a surgery has been performed, there cannot be a refund of the fee. By that time, all of the service providers involved in the whole transaction have been paid from the fee, including, but not limited to: hotel, drivers, hospital, surgeon, and least of all, Sourcis’s employees. If the complainant believes that the doctor committed malpractice, or that Sourcis, Inc. was negligent in some way, the dispute resolution process is clearly enumerated in the Consent Form. Moreover, Sourcis, Inc. makes it a policy and practice to work with all of its customers to quickly resolve any concerns or complaints in a fair and timely manner. However, in this instance, the complainant filed this complaint with the Revdex.com before allowing Sourcis, Inc. any time to respond to her initial email in which she expressed concern over her procedure (Attachment F). Finally, Sourcis, Inc. highly values its membership with the Revdex.com but the Revdex.com is not a proper forum to adjudicate allegations of medical malpractice. The complainant’s primary complaints all seem to revolve around allegations of professional negligence by the doctor in his performance of the surgery. None of the complaints allege failure by Sourcis, Inc. to perform as required under the contract or that Sourcis, Inc. engaged in deceptive or unlawful business practices. Only experts in the medical industry can draw conclusions of professional negligence after a thorough review of the evidence and an evaluation of professional standards of care. This forum is improper since Sourcis, Inc. cannot disclose the complainant’s relevant medical information in the face of HIPAA and other privacy statutes. Moreover, as mentioned above, Sourcis, Inc., is not a medical provider and cannot properly render medical opinions. Sourcis, Inc. has worked with Dr. [redacted] for a number of years. He is a very competent and skilled doctor who has performed thousands of bariatric surgical procedures with very few complaints. He is a true expert in the field of bariatric surgery. If Dr. [redacted] did not feel confident to safely perform a MGB, as alleged by complainant, then Sourcis, Inc. has no reason to dispute the opinions and decisions of Dr. [redacted]. ...........Complainant received the surgery that she requested (revision of a RouxenY bypass). There is no indication that the surgery complainant received was improperly performed. The complainant was abundantly told about the risks and success rate prior to consenting to the surgery she received. Complainant was never promised a “minigastric bypass.” Minigastric bypass is not even a procedure listed under the “Revision” page of [redacted]. This complaint was filed with the Revdex.com before Sourcis, Inc. had Page 5 of 6 reasonable time to respond to complainant’s direct complaint to Sourcis, Inc. The professional negligence nature of the complaint cannot be properly adjudicated by the Revdex.com.