The High Court in Suva has recently dismissed a protracted medical negligence lawsuit filed by a couple from Labasa against the Ministry of Health, hospital administrators, and the State. Justice Deepthi Amaratunga ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any breach of duty of care in their case, with the judgment issued on December 1, 2025.
The plaintiffs, Lila Wati, a 61-year-old vegetable farmer from Naduna, and her husband Dhruv Deo, claimed that a knee arthroscopy performed at Labasa Hospital in November 2015 led to severe complications. Following the procedure for a meniscal tear, Lila experienced significant swelling, pain, and loss of mobility, which was later diagnosed as septic arthritis caused by the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This serious condition ultimately necessitated a total knee replacement overseas.
The couple argued that both Labasa Hospital and CWM Hospital were negligent, citing issues such as improper sterilization of surgical equipment, unnecessary surgery, delayed diagnosis, inadequate treatment, and subpar post-operative care. Dhruv Deo also sought damages for economic loss, stating that he had to leave his farming work to care for Lila full-time.
In defense, the hospitals denied any liability, asserting that the arthroscopic procedure was medically warranted and appropriately consented to. They argued that infection is a known risk associated with surgery and that Pseudomonas aeruginosa is particularly challenging to detect, often stemming from various sources, including a patient’s own flora or existing health conditions.
Justice Amaratunga determined that the couple did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that negligence caused the infection, citing expert testimony that Pseudomonas aeruginosa can remain dormant and that its presence post-surgery does not inherently imply malpractice. Furthermore, the court recognized that Lila had signed a consent form warning of the risks involved.
Ultimately, the court concluded that both hospitals adhered to the appropriate standard of care and dismissed the lawsuit completely without any cost implications. This ruling underscores the complexities involved in medical negligence cases and reaffirms the legal standards that govern them.