MORE than 500 victims of a rogue surgeon who allegedly falsely diagnosed women with cancer and then carried out unnecessary operations on them may get little or no compensation because of a loophole in his insurance cover.
The victims are seeking payouts over operations performed by consultant surgeon Ian Paterson in two private hospitals.
The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed last week that it had been passed a file by police after a two-year investigation into one of the biggest medical scandals of recent years.
The Medical Defence Union (MDU), Paterson’s professional indemnity organisation, has said it will only cover claims lodged by private patients before June 30, 2013 with a cap of £10m, leaving potentially hundreds with limited payouts or no compensation at all. The decision has been attacked as “appalling” by victims.
Paterson was viewed as a “god-like” figure by many patients during the two decades that he worked as a surgeon in the NHS and privately in the West Midlands, according to the victims’ lawyer, Kashmir Uppal.
Advertisement
However, it is claimed that during that time he was falsely diagnosing patients with breast cancer and carrying out unnecessary operations. In other cases where the women did have cancer he failed to remove all the necessary tissue and in some instances the cancer recurred.
The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, where Paterson worked as a consultant, has settled 178 cases and paid out £7.65m in damages to his patients. It is estimated that a further 500 to 1,000 women had unnecessary or botched operations at two private hospitals, Spire Parkway Hospital and Spire Little Aston Hospital.
The MDU declined to comment on its actions, which could save it millions of pounds, but its website states that it provides indemnity on a “discretionary” basis.
“It’s absolutely outrageous,” said Sarah Jane Downing, an author from Solihull who allegedly had an unnecessary breast operation performed by Paterson in October 1998.
“It’s like having house insurance and then being told you are not going to be covered for the day you had a fire. It surely defeats the whole object of insurance. It is madness.”
Advertisement
Uppal, a senior clinical negligence lawyer at Thompsons Solicitors, who represents Downing and more than 360 other women who were operated on by Paterson in the two private hospitals, said: “The public perception is that if you have private healthcare you are better off. But if things go wrong you’re not.
“If a doctor is covered by the MDU, it should [not be that]. . . they can just decide to pull cover. If my clients who had operations in the private sector had been in the NHS, the claims would be settled and they would be getting on with their lives.”
Jade Edgington, also from Solihull, had four breast operations performed by Paterson between October 2005 and April 2009 and has been told that three were unnecessary. The 26-year-old said: “It’s awful that he did operations he didn’t need to.”
Paterson’s private patients say the trust and Spire Healthcare, which operates the two private hospitals where he carried out the operations, are also liable because they did not take effective action to stop him. A test case starting next year will rule on the issue of liability.
Lawyers say the Paterson case has exposed wider failures in insurance cover for patients in the private sector. Nisha Sebastian-Price, a solicitor at Bolt Burdon Kemp, said it was unfair on patients who had suffered negligent treatment that the MDU could withdraw cover. She said in some cases it would not even confirm if it provided professional indemnity for doctors facing claims.
Advertisement
Bette Lancaster, 51, from Maidstone, Kent, is pursuing a legal action against Rod Irvine, a surgeon who is facing a number of claims over alleged botched operations. Lancaster has alleged that Irvine had removed the wrong ovary during an operation.
He denies any wrongdoing, saying he identified a problem with the ovary during the procedure. The MDU is refusing to confirm or deny whether it provides professional indemnity for Irvine or whether it will pay out in the event of a successful claim.
Paterson has suffered psychiatric problems since the scandal broke. Christine Oxenburgh, his solicitor, said: “Mr Paterson lacks capacity to look after his own affairs. [His attorneys] comment that while he had capacity Mr Paterson said that he had done nothing wrong.
Advertisement
“In the event that he is charged [with offences], his attorneys expect him to defend the charges.”
Spire Healthcare said in a statement that it apologised for the distress suffered by Paterson’s patients and that it had learnt lessons from what had happened. It said it ensured that surgeons had proper professional indemnity and Paterson was a member of the MDU.
The MDU declined to comment on the Paterson or Irvine cases or on its general policies.