Settlement of claim against private surgeon for inaccurate advice on cancer risk of ovarian cyst and failure to recognise surgical injury

The clinical negligence team at Penningtons Manches Cooper has settled a claim for a female client who had unnecessary surgery due to incorrect advice about her risks of developing cancer, compounded by significant post operative issues because of the surgeon’s failure to recognise an injury caused during the procedure.

The claimant had initially undergone various investigations for abdominal pain which resulted in ultrasound imaging revealing the presence of ovarian cysts.

The defendant, Mr Gourab Misra, advised that because of her age and having already gone through the menopause, she was more likely to develop ovarian cancer if she did not have the ovarian cysts removed. Due to her family history of cancer, this advice frightened her and she agreed to proceed with the recommendation of a bilateral oophorectomy.

The claimant was admitted to BMI South Cheshire Private Hospital and underwent a laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy under the care of the defendant. Post-operatively, she suffered from abdominal pain and difficulties passing urine and gradually deteriorated. Subsequent investigations ultimately revealed the presence of the ureteric injury and she required multiple procedures to deal with the consequent problems and an extended hospital stay and recovery.

Our client alleged that that there was no proper discussion about the benefits of the proposed surgery beyond the cancer risk and no discussion about whether it would resolve her pain. Furthermore, she was not advised clearly as to her increased risk of complications during the proposed surgery as a result of her previous abdominal surgery.

Naomi Holland, senior associate in the medical negligence team at Penningtons Manches Cooper, was instructed to look into the potential claim and obtained expert evidence from a gynaecological surgeon and urologist. Their evidence was supportive of a claim against the defendant and a letter of claim was submitted to him. It was argued that he was negligent in the advice provided to the claimant in connection with the management of her ovarian cysts including incorrect advice about the risk of cancer, which was not increased in the way he put to her, and his failure to properly advise in relation to the risks of surgery.

Furthermore, the defendant was negligent in the performance of the laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in not recognising the ureteric injury that had been caused.

The clinical negligence team issued and served proceedings on the defendant’s solicitors. Once a defence was served, the defendant admitted that the information provided to the claimant prior to her surgery was not complete or accurate and accepted that, had she had the correct information, she would not have proceeded with the surgery at that time. At this stage, he also made an offer to settle the claim in full.

The claimant felt that an acknowledgement that she had been given incorrect advice and had gone through all of the problems she had suffered unnecessarily was the main reason for her bringing the claim and elected to accept the defendant’s offer.

Read the full article about the case here.