A catalogue of errors in eye surgery

Posted: 13/04/2022

Further criticism has arisen of a private eye hospital in London and the specialist eye surgeons connected with it.

In 2019, an eye surgeon with some media following, Mr Bobby Qureshi, was struck off the General Medical Council’s register. Concern about his practice stemmed from his false representations about the likely success of proposed treatments, which led to him failing to obtain informed consent. It was alleged that he had shown a profound failure to respect patients’ autonomy or rights of self-determination in considering treatment. There was also criticism of the excessive charges that he imposed for this surgery. Senior associate Tim Wright has provided a detailed overview of this matter in a previous article, which can be read here.

Mr Qureshi had also set up and run The London Eye Hospital.

In November 2020, the court gave judgment in a case brought by a patient of The London Eye Hospital. Treatment was by a different surgeon, but the initial consultation was with Mr Qureshi. In that case, Plant v El Amir and The London Eye Hospital [2020] EWHC 2902 (QB), the issues were similar to the complaints against Mr Qureshi and derived from his actions.

Mrs Plant, aged 79, suffered from age related macular degeneration and was partially sighted. Her vision was worse in the left eye. She wanted treatment of that eye so that she could read magazines again.

She was persuaded at an initial assessment to have surgery on both eyes because she was told that macular degeneration would eventually affect the right eye as well. In retrospect, it seemed that this advice was more to do with doubling the fee to be charged than clinical justification. The surgery was to involve the insertion of visual implants to both eyes.

In practice only the first stage of surgery took place, which was on the good eye. That procedure failed and sight in that eye was irreparably damaged.

The court found that informed consent had not been obtained prior to the surgery in that the clinicians had failed to properly explain:

• the risks with this surgery;
• the particular risks of surgery to the good eye; and
• that the proposed surgery could not in any event improve the vision in the poorer eye.

In addition, it was found that published data did not support reasonable outcomes for a patient with AMD.

Critically, the court found that, had it been explained to Mrs Plant that the proposed surgery would not have enabled her to read again, and also carried a risk of complications, she would not have gone ahead.

This finding of a failure to provide information which would have led the patient to reach a different decision is an essential feature of any claim in clinical negligence based on lack of consent. It was particularly clear in this case.

There was, sadly, a second aspect of this claim.

As a result of this surgery the patient developed glaucoma, which is raised pressure in the eye. The court found that but for this surgery taking place, she would not have developed glaucoma. This was because that she had no previous history of glaucoma, and did not have raised pressure in the left eye. The glaucoma was of an unusual type where early treatment might have prevented permanent injury to sight. Again, there was found to be a delay which contributed to permanent injury.

The private sector provides some excellent eye surgery (including a great deal of waiting list work for the NHS), but it is very sad to see such a tragic outcome in this case. Compensation was awarded.

The London Eye Hospital went into administration in 2019 and it is likely that most other claims arising from treatment there will now be out of time under the three year limitation period, but the ophthalmic group at Penningtons Manches Cooper would be pleased to advise you if you would like to discuss a poor outcome.

Return to news headlines