Image
Icon

Directory

IconAssociations and Institutes
IconBBBEE Consulting and Verification Agencies
IconCompare Medical Scheme Benefits
IconConsumer Protection
IconCorporate Governance
IconCredit Bureaus
IconEmergency Medical Rescue
IconExpatriate Cover
IconHealthcare Consultants
IconMedical Aid Brokers
IconMedical Aid Schemes
IconMedical Malpractice Cover
IconMedical Schemes Trustees Liability Insurance
IconMedical Service Providers
IconOmbud
IconOnline Quotes
IconPublications
IconRegulatory Authorities
IconWellness Programs
Image
  Subscribe To »

Failure to warn of risks of surgery does not give rise to automatic claim for damages

Published

2020

Wed

15

Jan

A UK court of appeal dismissed a claim for damages which arose as a result of a surgeon's failure to warn a patient of the risks associated with undergoing a procedure to repair an abdominal hernia on the basis that the claimant would, nevertheless, have chosen to undergo the procedure.

The claimant was successful in establishing that the surgeon did not inform her of the risks of undergoing a repair to her hernia using a surgical mesh and, more specifically, that a repair to her hernia using the surgical mesh procedure could affect her future pregnancies. The claimant was single at the time but later began a relationship with a partner she wanted to have children with.

 

The judge held that even if the claimant was provided with the information relating to the alternative procedure, being a suture repair to her hernia, she would have, in any event, elected to undergo surgery for repair to her hernia using the surgical mesh procedure. The reason for this was that it was highly likely that suture repair to her hernia would fail and that the hernia would recur. The judge was of the view that the claimant, despite stating during evidence, that she would have chosen the suture repair option, was a rational person.

 

The court had to determine whether the surgeon's failure to obtain informed consent from the claimant and the resulting breach of duty, gave rise to the damages claimed.

 

The surgeon admitted that he did not discuss with the claimant what the potential implications of a mesh repair were. Both parties' experts were in agreement that the claimant should have been counselled about the potentially adverse effects of a surgical mesh during pregnancy. The surgeon claimed that the claimant did not indicate that there was a prospect of her falling pregnant following the procedure being performed, in which case he would have informed her of the risks associated with a mesh repair to her hernia.

 

The appeal court agreed with the following findings of the trial court:

 

·         The claimant would have been informed that the suture repair would almost certainly fail within 2 years of the procedure being performed, and that the surgical mesh repair procedure stood a very high chance of success;

 

·         She would have been informed that almost any surgeon, including the surgeon who performed the procedure on her, would have advised her that she should undergo the surgical mesh procedure as it was the better option;

 

·         She would not have been informed that she could not have children in the future. However, she would have been informed that there were certain risks involved should she elect to undergo the surgical mesh procedure. The court stated that there was an important distinction between the two;

 

·         She was single at the time when the procedure was performed and she did not contemplate falling pregnant at any stage, other than 2 years prior to that when she was in a relationship.

 

The claimant alleged that she suffered shock, distress and depression which were all "intimately connected" to the surgeon's failure to obtain her properly informed consent.

 

The court of appeal stated that while the "but for" test is still applicable, it is also necessary for the claimant to show that the surgeon's breach of duty was the cause of the injury suffered. The claimant was not successful in establishing that but for the breach, she would not have undergone the procedure to repair her hernia with a surgical mesh. The claimant furthermore did not present any evidence to the effect that she would have decided to postpone the procedure had she been informed of the risks involved.

 

"The judgment is Lucy Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust."

 
Source: Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa Inc
 
« Back to previous page Print this page » |
 

Breaking News »

Coronavirus and its effects on international trade and insurance

The deadly novel coronavirus outbreak (2019-CoV) has resulted in passenger and cargo ships being quarantined around the world, partial and complete travel bans to parts of China and shipping and airlines being ...
Read More »

  

Negligent failure to perform caesarean section in time (UK)

The claimant, suing the UK National Health Service, had a medical history of having undergone two caesarean sections and a tear to her womb. Her fourth pregnancy was therefore regarded as “high risk” ...
Read More »

  

Euthanasia 44 years later: a case of deja vu

The debate around euthanasia and its legal implications has stirred again due to the recent case of Professor Sean Davison, charged with three counts of murder in circumstances where the deceased’s had asked ...
Read More »

  

The man who couldn't die...

Professor Pieter Carstens   Insurance Gateway attended Norton Rose Fulbright’s Health Law Practice and Professor Pieter Carstens presentation on Wednesday, 29 January 2020. Where Professor Carstens ...
Read More »

 

More News »

Image

Investment »

Image

Life »

Image

Retirement »

Image

Short-term »

Image
Image
Advertise Here

From The Glossary »

Icon

Deposit Premium:

Certain policies are written under conditions which provide that the final premium is not determined until the policy has expired. The premium charged at the inception of cover is the deposit premium. The term is also used to refer to the initial premium paid by an applicant for life insurance which is held in suspense by the life company pending its acceptance or rejection of the proposal. The term is also used in reinsurance policies to describe ...
More Definitions »

 

Advertise

 

eZine

 

Contact IG

 

Media Pack

 

RSS Feeds

By using this website you agree to the Terms of Use.
Copyright © Insurance Gateway (Pty) Ltd 2004 - 2020. All Rights Reserved.