A Nairobi court has ordered Aga Khan Health Service Kenya to compensate a woman and her spouse with over Ksh.157 million following a botched surgical procedure that resulted in severe physical and emotional harm.

High Court Judge Alexander Muteti found that the hospital’s gynaecologist, referred to as the first defendant, performed an unauthorised removal of the woman’s cervix during a procedure in September 2006 that had initially been consented to for the removal of her uterus and ovary. This act was deemed grossly negligent and a violation of the patient’s rights.

As a consequence of the unauthorised surgery, the woman suffered life-altering injuries, leading to the loss of her employment and earning capacity. Both she and her husband experienced a significant loss of amenities and consortium, profoundly affecting their quality of life.

While the second defendant, another medical practitioner involved, was cleared of negligence, the court held the third defendant—the hospital—accountable for breaching its duty of care. The hospital had allowed the first defendant to practice despite being aware of his prior disbarment from medical practice in Uganda.

Furthermore, the hospital’s failure to provide essential diagnostic equipment, such as a flexible cystoscope, impeded the timely detection of complications that were later identified and treated by specialists in South Africa.

The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had substantiated their claims, including special damages, and ruled that they are entitled to recover both special and general damages totalling Ksh.157 million.

Read Also: Drama in Court as Suspect in Kasipul MP Murder Case Threatens to Kill Prosecutor

The woman told the court that, due to the defendants’ negligence, she suffered the loss of her cervix, resulting in the loss of sexual enjoyment and the inability to satisfy her husband sexually.

She further testified that these injuries compelled her to seek specialised medical treatment in South Africa, incurring additional expenses beyond those initially paid to the defendants.

The plaintiffs claimed that the nature of the injury necessitates sustained and continuous medical treatment, for which they are seeking compensation for future medical costs.