Surgeon denies negligence

A gynaecologist today filed an appeal from a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court which had concluded that she was guilty of negligence.

Dr Astrid Camilleri was ordered by the first court to pay €96,000 in damages to Mrs Tessie Ellul after the court concluded that the surgeon had perforated Mrs Ellul's intestine.

In her appeal Dr Camilleri categorically denied any negligence when she had performed surgery on Mrs Ellul. According to Dr Camilleri, the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court deserved to be revoked by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it was not substantiated by any of the evidence heard in first instance.

Dr Camilleri submitted that the evidence produced showed that she had not perforated Mrs Ellul's intestine while operating upon her. Testimony given by surgeon Mr Anthony Zammit indicated that no perforation had resulted.

Mr Zammit had told the court that it was only an initial impression of another surgeon that perforation had occurred. This impression had been subsequently contradicted upon microscopic investigation of Mrs Ellul's intestine, when no perforation site had been identified.

In her application of appeal Dr Camilleri added that the first court had failed to take into account testimony given by Prof Godfrey Laferla, professor of surgery at the University of Malta. Prof Laferla had concluded, after examining all hospital records, that Mrs Ellul's allegations against Dr Camilleri were unfounded. According to this witness, Mrs Ellul suffered from diverticulosis, an intestinal condition which could lead to the symptons manifested by Mrs Ellul upon her admission to hospital following the surgery. These symptoms, said Prof Laferla, were not those of a perforated intestine, but symptoms of intestinal obstruction.

The witness added that Mrs Ellul's good state of health following the surgery performed by Dr Camilleri excluded any link with the operation.

Dr Camilleri also referred to the testimony of Prof. Charles Savona Ventura who had assisted her in the surgery on Mrs Ellul. This witness too categorically denied that any perforation of Mrs Ellul's intestine had occurred during the surgery performed. In conclusion, Dr Camilleri claimed that she had exercised all due diligence required by law and therefore she could never be held responsible in damages.

The application of appeal was signed by lawyers Joseph Zammit Maempel, Andrew Muscat and Paul Cachia