Gynaecologist cleared of kidney mishap

A gynaecologist, who had been ordered to pay a patient almost €70,000 in damages for causing her to lose a kidney during a hysterectomy was exonerated by the courts yesterday.

Gynaecologist Olga Avramov had been found responsible for damaging Rose Gauci's urethra (tube through which urine passes) during the surgery, in turn, damaging her kidney to the extent that it had to be removed.

However, the appeal court overturned the decision after court-appointed experts could not find any fault in Ms Avramov's post-operative care.

Ms Gauci and her husband Grezzju had filed their action for damages in the First Hall of the Civil Court against consultant gynaecologist Donald Felice and Ms Avramov.

She claimed negligence on the part of the two gynaecologists in the course of an operation she had undergone in October 1997. She was admitted to hospital under the care of Mr Felice for investigations into stomach pain and it turned out she needed a hysterectomy. The operation was carried out by Ms Avramov, who worked in Mr Felice's firm, and Ms Gauci alleged that her urethra had been damaged in the operation.

The first court acquitted Mr Felice of all responsibility, seeing he had not performed the surgery. However, Ms Avramov was found to be negligent and was ordered to pay Ms Gauci damages.

Ms Avramov appealed to the Court of Appeal composed of Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Albert J. Magri and Mr Justice Tonio Mallia.

The appeal court noted that the first court had ruled that, once there was a possibility of damage to the urethra during the surgery, the surgeon had to investigate whether or not this organ had been affected.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and said that the courts were not bound to substitute their discretion to judgment for that of the surgeon. A surgeon was expected to conform with general medical practice and not with standards deemed necessary by a court.

Court-appointed experts, engaged by the first court had agreed that there was a risk that the urethra could be impaired by the surgery undergone by Ms Gauci. But the experts had not indicated whether tests should have been carried out after surgery and could not fault Ms Avramov's post-operative care.

The appeal court consequently overturned the original judgment.