The sixth section of the Provincial Court of Pontevedra has confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance 3 of Vigo and has sentenced Sanitas to pay almost a million euros for the death of a patient that should not have been operated. The insurer will have to compensate the widow and the children of the deceased, who died in 2017 when she was 62, with 470,330 euros of main and half a million more for the insurance contract law, according to the ruling.
The first instance judgment had concluded that there was a bad medical practice that caused the patient’s death. It was determined that the surgery to which it was subjected was not justified by diverticular disease sufferingas well as that proper informed consent was not presented and the patient was properly informed about the intervention performed.
In addition, the surgeon recognized in the trial that, if he had known that the patient had cirrhosis, which finally contributed to his death, would not have operated it. However, This ailment was not diagnosed before the interventionwhat is considered the exclusive responsibility of the doctor.
There were clear signs of liveropathy that were not taken into account, and the experts agree that The operation could have been avoided or postponed to perform tests that discard cirrhosis. In conclusion, the first instance ruling argued that surgery should never have been performed without complete information or clear consent of the patient and affects that if the death was not carried out, it would not have occurred.
The Provincial Court concludes that the surgeon had knowledge, according to the medical history he elaborated, that the patient suffered chronic liver disease, According to radiological tests carried out between 2013 and 2016. Despite this, he adds the sentence, did not request new evidence to confirm the evolution of the disease before indicating surgery that was contraindicated in cases of liver cirrhosis.
This omission that contributed to the patient’s death, the court argues, supposes “A non -apology for lack of weighting of the conditions consisted of the medical history”. In addition, it indicates the ruling that, not to properly confirm the patient’s health status, cannot be considered that information about the risks of the procedure or the informed consent were valid.
The Provincial Court indicates that the first instance judgment It correctly valued medical responsibility. The ruling of the Provincial Court is appealed in cassation before the Supreme Court.
