Kenyatta National Hospital will pay a woman more than Sh1 million in compensation after medics left a cotton gauze inside her stomach during an operation.
The High Court ordered the hospital to also pay for the cost of the case.
KNH had appealed a magistrate’s court decision in favour of Letisia Atieno, who had sued it alongside consultant gynecologist Allan Ikol.
In the appeal, the hospital claimed that Dr Ikol had conducted the surgery in his private capacity.
However, Justice Rhoda Rutto of the High Court found that the hospital could not evade responsibility of the surgery as it was paid for the services rendered by Ikol.
At the same time, the judge said that the referral hospital could not distance itself from the mishap as its staff was involved.
The judge was of the view that Atieno had endured pain from a second surgery in which doctors found that a cotton wool gauze had been left, thus causing infection and pus.
“It is my finding therefore, that the appellant’s personnel fell short of the standard of reasonable medical care and breached their duty of care which was a direct cause of the 1st respondent’s (Atieno) pain and second surgery. It was not enough for the appellant to submit that the 2nd respondent (Ikol) conducted the operation in his private capacity and the appellant only offered its facility and personnel to the doctor,” said Justice Rutto.
In the case, Atieno narrated that she was Dr Ikol’s patient at KNH.
She stated that she was admitted to the hospital for surgery on October 25, 2016, and discharged on November 2, 2016.
Atieno testified that she later started experiencing abdominal pain and informed the doctor who recommended antibiotics and painkillers which she took until February 2017.
The court heard that the pain did not go away.
Atieno decided to seek a second and third opinion at Metropolitan Hospital and Nairobi Hospital respectively.
She said that three scans done revealed that she had a pelvic mass in the abdomen.
Atieno had to be admitted at Nairobi Hospital for an emergency surgery as the mass had moved to the upper abdomen. It is then a large cotton gauze was removed from the stomach.
Atieno narrated that doctors drained two litres of pus due to the rot that had been caused by the foreign material.
A medical report used in court indicated that that it was a standard professional practice that sponge count must be made at the beginning and before the abdomen is closed yet Dr Ikol failed to do so.
Atieno also stated that that the gauze used for the surgery was not x-ray detectable, thereby making diagnosis difficult.
She accused KNH of negligence arguing that it failed to provide x-ray detectable gauze for the surgery, and allowing Ikol to perform a surgery for which he was either not conversant with or needed supervision.
Atieno lamented that she was subjected to further surgery exposing her to huge expenses and pain which she has never fully recovered from.
Both KNH and Iko denied liability and prayed that the case be dismissed.
Iko argued that during the surgery, there was an anaesthetist and his assistant, two senior qualified nurses.
According to him, one would run around gathering extra required equipment and counting gauzes at the beginning and end of surgery while the other would scrub in for the operation.
He further said that before closing the patient’s abdomen, all the equipment was counted by the two nurses and everything was accounted for and the theatre nurse filled a theatre form to confirm that all instruments and gauzes were accounted for and he thus proceeded to close her.
The doctor argued that treatment was procedurally and professionally done without any negligence.
He stated that on January 19, 2017, Atieno visited his clinic and he noted a firm mass in her pelvic areas.
According to him, he did a scan and recommended another surgery as there could have been a remnant ovary that could have formed a cyst.
At the magistrate’s court, Atieno was awarded Sh800,414 as special damages. She was also awarded and extra Sh100,000. Out of the amount, her insurer was to pay Sh163,932.
At the High Court, the judge ordered that they should pay the amount in addition to the cost of the case.
“The appeal is devoid of merit,” the judge said.
