Woman Sues Doctor for Wrongful Birth Due to Incorrect Filshie Clip Application

Aug 10, 2023 | Publication

The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant, Dr Nita Dhupar, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, claiming damages as a result of alleged professional negligence in relation to a failed tubal ligation (Filshie clip) surgery, performed in August of 2014. The aim of this surgery is to achieve permanent occlusion of the fallopian tubes in which prevents future pregnancy. However, within twelve months of the elected surgery, the plaintiff unexpectedly conceived her fourth child. The damages claimed by the plaintiff are avoidable harm from conception, pregnancy, and childbirth.

In a detailed judgment, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, with the award of damages sitting at a total of $408,700. The court found that due to the failure of applying the Filshie clip correctly, fertilisation was possible. In addition, the court accepted expert evidence, which found Dr Dhupar to have acted outside the excepted standard of care for professional, as per s 5O of the Civil Liability Act. At 919:

Dr Dhupar’s failure to properly apply the Filshie clip to the left fallopian tube was contrary to peer professional opinion widely accepted in Australia as competent professional practice as identified and cited in the manufacturer’s literature and the RANZCOG guidelines.

An inherent risk defence was raised by the defendant as per s 5I of the CLA, however this was not accepted by the court, explaining that an inherent risk defence had to be disregarded due to the poor application of the clip itself. At 889:

‘Dr Dhupar’s non-typical application of the left Filshie clip had the effect of materially increasing the risk of permitting patency or partial patency of the fallopian tube to remain so as to allow the passage of gametes. An unintended pregnancy in those circumstances cannot be reasonably described as the materialisation of an inherent risk within the meaning of s 5I of the CL Act.’

The decision of Lee (a pseudonym) v Dhupar NSWDC 717 can be read in full here: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/175ddc1cf4a985ef1722519a

The information in this publication is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, we do not guarantee that the information in this publication is accurate at the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. We are not responsible for the information of any source to which a link is provided or reference is made and exclude all liability in connection with use of these sources. If you do not wish to receive newsletters from us, please let us know.

Latest Insights

Failure to Warn: When Does It Become Medical Negligence?

Medical practitioners have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care and skill when providing professional advice and treatment. Central to this duty is the obligation to warn patients of any material risks associated with the proposed treatment. A material risk is...

What Happens After a Hit and Run Accident in NSW?

A hit and run accident can be traumatic and confusing, especially when the at-fault driver flees the scene and cannot be identified. Many victims assume they have no way to recover compensation. In New South Wales, that is not correct – the CTP scheme provides a clear...

Consequences of Breaching an Agreement

A breach of agreement occurs when one party fails to perform their obligations under a legally binding contract. The consequences of such a breach can be significant and may expose the defaulting party to various legal and financial liabilities. The primary remedy for...