Dear TRS, SGH and the National Eye Centre performed a surgery that we didn't agree to

This is a little lengthy, but please bear with me. Remember to make a point to take note of e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g a doctor said next time, best if you can collect some form of "evidence". We should not have to do this, but apparently, that's not the case. Not anymore, anyway.

My father has been going for yearly consultation at Singapore National Eye Centre (SNEC) for the last 2 years for his blurred vision. On both occasions, the doctors told him his cataracts were not serious enough to warrant a surgery and to come back if he felt his vision was getting worse.

This year, however, his vision starts hindering him at work. An appointment for another consultation was made subsequently. On 9th July 2014, I went down with my father for his appointment and after all primary checks were done, the doctor told my father that he needs to go for surgery in order to correct his vision. Given that this is his first time having any procedures done on his eyes, he was naturally anxious and curious to know more. I was with him throughout the session when he asked her about his impending surgery (including downtime, stitches/glue, etc). To her credit, the doctor was patient in explaining the details to my father. As my father is a mandarin/dialect speaker, he referred to his cataracts as "mo" or "bai mo" the whole time whilst he was enquiring about his surgery, and we were both under the impression that he was getting his cataracts removed.

Fast forward to 18th September 2014, the day of his surgery, everything went smoothly (or so we thought) and we were in and out of the hospital in less than 3 hours.

This morning (26th September 2014), on the 3rd follow-up after his surgery, he asked the doctor assigned to him for his follow-ups on why his vision is still blurred and why is the "mo" still there after so long. To his shock, the doctor told him that the procedure he signed up for is not for the removal of his cataracts but another one entirely. And whilst necessary, it doesn't have anything to do with improving his vision. He was so shocked and angry that he left the compound immediately.

And of course, upon hearing this, I was furious, so I called up SNEC on my father's behalf (he was too agitated), to find out what is going on. I was eventually directed to a "Quality Service Officer" (oh, the irony) by the name of Susan. I'm sure my anxiety and frustration can be felt over the phone, given that after I explained what was going on to the other two prior to Susan, both of them were efficient in transferring my calls and informing me of where to direct my grievances.

However, that doesn't seem to apply to a particular Quality Service Officer by the name of Susan. Never mind the fact that I had to call countless times to reach her because she wasn't at her desk (not wrong to leave her desk, but there can't be only one QSO, right). Never mind the fact that checking her messages after getting back to her desk isn't her priority. She actually had the nerve to GIGGLE while I was explaining the situation (for the 3rd time, mind you) to her. I was so perturbed that I had to stop mid-way to ask her if she thought this was funny.

After getting the whole situation across, she said she will check with the relevant nurses and doctors and get back to me shortly, which she did. In multiple calls.

However, her explanations stayed pretty much the same:

• Both doctors insisted that they refer to the part being removed as "皮" (pronounced as pi; or skin in Mandarin) and so did my father.

I refuted by saying I was there at the first consultation on 9th July and no, I was pretty sure my father said "mo" (cataracts in Hokkien) all the way.

• However, on his follow-up with the doctor this morning (26th Sept), the doctor he saw today claimed that my father was conversing with her the entire time using "皮" as a reference.

I was in class at that time (if only I knew), but I believe she was insulating that my father decided to come out with a new moniker for his cataracts today, after referring to it as his "mo" for the past 4 years or so. In her haste to stop my father from making a scene, she told him that the sugery was done to correct his 散光/astigmatism which, according to Susan, is not even the case.

• "From her understanding", things like this shouldn't be happening because they "were very stringent in their SOP of asking the patients if they knew what they were signing up for at every step along the way".