B v Azhar Aslam
CLS V Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust
B v Azhar Aslam
B underwent cosmetic surgery on her face in 2003. Unfortunately, that cosmetic surgery actually produced a physical and cosmetic defect in the Claimant’s left eye, as a result of which the Defendant carried out 2 further operations to try and rectify the original surgery. Unfortunately, these were unsuccessful, and it was not until the Claimant was referred to another plastic surgeon, that most of the problems with the left eye were resolved, although the Claimant was left with some scarring and self-consciousness about her physical appearance.
The claim proceeded on the basis of failure to obtain informed consent for each of the 3 operations which the Defendant carried out, damages for the 3 negligent operations, and for associated financial losses.
The claim settled in the sum of £34,000, representing £20,000 for pain, suffering and affects upon her everyday life including psychiatric injury which lasted for 2 years, and £14,000 for financial losses.
This claim was handled by Paul Rumley, Partner and Head of the Swindon & Marlborough Clinical Negligence Department.
CLS V Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust
The Claimant was admitted to the Royal United Hospital in Bath for treatment of an upper respiratory tract infection on the 27th January 1998. He was one month old. Intravenous fluids were delivered through an IVAC. The infusion was made up of 10% Dextrose and electrolytes. On 29th January at 21.30hrs the pressure alarm sounded. The infusion site was checked, and the cannula remained sited in the veins, and infusion recommenced. However, at 09.45hrs on 30th January, the infusion line was discovered to have extravasated, resulting in gross swelling of the left hand and fingers, and tissue damage was observed to the back of the infant claimant's hand.
A formal Letter of Claim was sent to the Trust (following investigation) on the 13th April 2000, and the Pre-Action Protocol Letter of Response was dated the 18th July 2000. Following internal review of the incident, the Trust accepted that the infant's hand was bandaged in such a way that it was impossible to see, even though the infusion was checked regularly, whether there was any leakage from the drip. It was accepted that because the bandaging was not removed for 3 days, the serious damage to the back of the baby's hand took place, and that earlier removal might have resulted in the extravasation having been recognised earlier than was the case. However, the Trust still denied liability, and particularly that there was a failure to monitor the drip as was suggested in the Letter of Claim. There was monitoring, it was wholly ineffective, because of the negligent bandaging.
Click here to view the full case report
