I noticed a pain in my upper abdominal area towards the central abdominal line. At first the pain was sharp and then i noticed a lump coming through, i guessed a hernia.

At the time i had private health care via bupa, i arranged a speedy appointment and was told, after some tests, i had a very small hernia. The advice given was not to operate, the doctor explained the whole made during surgery would be bigger than the hernia itself and it would make no sense going ahead with the operation.

During the diagnosis i explained i was in pain, a lot of pain for such a small bump. Apparently the hernia a small piece of fat was popping though the muscle, this in turn this caused the pain. But an operation was not recommended, i'm not really sure why.

One and a half years later the bump is 4 times as large, its also grown a smaller brother down to the right lower abdominal, about 3 inches up right from my navel and on the same side as the original. Currently can't eat a meal with out feeling some discomfort, its not acid reflux. The pain discomfort is the hernia popping out from eating a large meal. Even a small meal is currently causes discomfort and pain.

Clearly i'm going to get something done about the pain, and get the hernia treated/operated on. My main concern now is why was an operation not done right at the start. This would have cleared up any pain, detected any other weakness which could have been repaired at the same time. Is it at all possible the operation did not go ahead because of the cost on the insurance.

I know this is not America but its still private health care and being so it comes out of my insurance, somewhere in the back of my mind, i'm thinking the bupa doctor not going ahead with the op was strange. I was in pain, an operation would have fixed that, what could have been the doctors motivation. Let the hernia get bigger and become more painful as it has done and then operate. does this sound fishy to anyone?