A gynaecologist who had been ordered by a Court to pay €96,000 in damages to a patient whose intestine had been perforated had the judgement overturned on appeal and she has now been declared not guilty.

The First Hall of the Civil had concluded that gynaecologist Astrid Camilleri was guilty of negligence.

In her appeal, Dr Camilleri categorically denied any negligence when she performed surgery on Mrs Tessie Ellul. According to Dr Camilleri, the judgment 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 during the operation. 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 was contradicted on microscopic investigation of Mrs Ellul's intestine, when no perforation site was identified.

In her appeal, Dr Camilleri added that the first court had failed to take into account the testimony given by Prof. Godfrey Laferla, professor of surgery at the University of Malta.

Prof Laferla had concluded, after examining 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 symptoms manifested by Mrs Ellul.

These symptoms, said Prof Laferla, were not those of a perforated intestine, but 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 also categorically denied that any perforation of Mrs Ellul's intestine had occurred during the surgery.

Dr Camilleri claimed that she had exercised all due diligence required by law and, therefore, she could not be held responsible in damages.