Judgment reserved in pregnancy case

A High Court judge has reserved his decision on whether a woman who became pregnant after having her tubes clipped should get compensation.

She is suing her former doctor and the health board he works for, claiming she was not warned in 1999 that there was a chance the operation could fail. Less than a year later, she gave birth to a girl with Down's syndrome.

In the High Court at Blenheim yesterday, Justice David Baragwanath said that because of the complexity of the case and its potential for setting a precedent, he would reserve his decision.

The woman is seeking to recover the costs of bringing up her daughter. Studies have shown the chances of the operation failing to prevent pregnancy to be around one in 200.

The doctor who performed the operation has said that because of his experience overseas, he was always "meticulous and pedantic" to ensure patients got the information they needed.

The patient, doctor and health board all have interim name suppression.

Yesterday, much of the day was taken up with legal argument on the nature of informed consent and whether the case fell under the umbrella of the ACC.

Quentin Davis, for the woman, said there were two ways the doctor might have failed in his duty to inform the patient about the risks - he either did not tell her at all or did not effectively communicate the information.


He said the woman had always maintained she would have reconsidered the operation if she had been made aware of the risk of failure.

Defence lawyer Chris Hodson said there had been a number of precautions in place to ensure that the patient knew about the risk.

The doctor had first told her in the initial interview and then posted the details of the interview and an information leaflet to her. Finally she would have been briefed about the risks by a nurse before the operation.

The woman says the letter with the information leaflet never reached her.

* A New Zealand Press Association report on Tuesday described the operation as "botched". NZPA accepts that there was no allegation or evidence in the case that the operation was performed without due care and apologises for the error.

- NZPA