A chef who claimed an unnecessary medical operation was performed on her six years ago was awarded damages of £35,505 by the High Court yesterday. A stay was put on the award in the event of an appeal.
Sligo-born Ms Connie Ewing (24), of Main Street, Ballintra, Co Donegal, had claimed that although she was told she was having an operation to have an ovarian cyst removed, nothing was found during the operation.
The operation was carried out at Sligo General Hospital, whose proprietors are the North Western Health Board, by a consultant gynaecologist/obstetrician, Mr Carthage Carroll, on November 17th, 1992.
In his judgment yesterday, Mr Justice O'Donovan said Mr Carroll's decision to operate on Ms Ewing on that date was for the purpose of excising an ovarian cyst and not for his stated purpose of confirming a suspicion that she might be suffering from endometriosis.
It was the unanimous opinion of all the relevant specialists who had given evidence before him, including Mr Carroll himself, that the indications to justify surgery for the removal of an ovarian cyst did not exist and, in fact, no such cyst was found.
Accordingly, it was an unnecessary operation, the judge said.
He was further persuaded that Mr Carroll's failure to arrange for a review ultrasound scan of Ms Ewing's pelvis before undertaking that operation was equally blame worthy.
"In those circumstances, it is my opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to damages by way of compensation for the insult done to her and for the sequelae thereof," Mr Justice O'Donovan said.
He accepted evidence from Ms Ewing that she continued to experience the pain which had troubled her prior to her operation.
She expressed great anger at the fact that she had been subjected to the trauma of surgery under general anaesthetic, with all its inherent risks, for no good purpose. In the judge's view, that reaction was both justified and understandable.
She also complained that, as a result of the surgery, she had been left with an abdominal scar just above her bikini line. She had given evidence which was not challenged that, from time to time, the scar became itchy and she experienced a burning sensation in it.
Mr Justice O'Donovan allowed £25,000 for general damages to date, including damages for the insult of the unnecessary surgery with its attendant risks and fears and for anger, frustration and disappointment which Ms Ewing experienced on the realisation that it was all for nothing.
He noted that Ms Ewing had been left with an abdominal scar which would to a greater or lesser extent disfigure her for the rest of her life and allowed £10,000 for future general damages and £505 special damages.
Mr Justice O'Donovan recalled that at Easter 1992 Ms Ewing began to experience severe pain in her abdomen which recurred three times a week, accompanied by bouts of vomiting.
She had consulted a GP and was referred to the hospital for assessment.
In July 1992, she had further investigations. By November 5th 1992, she was "close to the end of her tether" because of the pain.