The High Court in Suva has recently dismissed a lengthy medical negligence lawsuit brought by a couple from Labasa against the Ministry of Health, alongside hospital administrators and the State. Justice Deepthi Amaratunga ruled that the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate any breach of duty of care in their claims, with the decision rendered on December 1, 2025.
The plaintiffs, identified as 61-year-old Lila Wati, a vegetable farmer from Naduna, and her husband Dhruv Deo, alleged that a knee arthroscopy conducted at Labasa Hospital in November 2015 resulted in severe complications. Following the surgery for a meniscal tear, Lila faced significant swelling, pain, and loss of mobility, which was later identified as septic arthritis caused by the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This serious condition ultimately required Lila to undergo a total knee replacement abroad.
The couple accused both Labasa Hospital and CWM Hospital of negligence, pointing to issues including improper sterilization of surgical instruments, unnecessary surgery, delayed diagnosis, insufficient treatment, and inadequate post-operative care. Dhruv Deo also sought damages for economic loss, stating that he had to leave his farming job to provide full-time care to Lila.
In its defense, the hospitals denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the arthroscopic procedure was medically justified and consented to appropriately. They emphasized that the risk of infection is a known complication of surgery, noting that Pseudomonas aeruginosa can be difficult to detect and may originate from various sources, including the patient’s own body or pre-existing health issues.
Justice Amaratunga concluded that the plaintiffs failed to present adequate evidence linking negligence to the infection, highlighting expert testimony that Pseudomonas aeruginosa can remain dormant and that its post-surgical presence does not automatically suggest malpractice. Additionally, the court acknowledged that Lila had signed a consent form outlining the possible risks associated with the procedure.
As a result, the court found that both hospitals met the required standard of care and dismissed the lawsuit entirely, without imposing any costs on the plaintiffs. This ruling highlights the intricate nature of medical negligence cases and reinforces the legal standards that govern them, reaffirming the importance of evidence in such proceedings. Overall, this decision underscores the challenges faced by plaintiffs in proving negligence and offers a reminder of the inherent risks associated with surgical procedures.