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

The Rise of Generative AI in Law and the Need for Caution

Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI), a subset of artificial intelligence focused on creating new content, has gained significant traction in various industries, including law. Capable of producing text, images, and audio, platforms like ChatGPT are among the...

Australia Introduces Statutory Tort for Serious Invasions of Privacy

The Australian legal landscape is about to undergo a significant transformation with the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This change comes with the passage of the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 by the Commonwealth...

Building Disputes – Which Court or Tribunal Deals with Them?

In New South Wales, there are different forums to have building disputes and claims addressed. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal handles building disputes particularly residential building work claims.  There are numerous claims prosecuted and defended in...

When should a business take legal action on an overdue account?

Generally speaking, an overdue account should be acted on promptly.  The longer it is left, the greater the likelihood the account will need to be written off. Unless the debtor has a satisfactory reason for delaying payment, the account should be followed...

Court Rules Against Kmart in Personal Injury Appeal

In a recent case, Kmart has been held liable for injuries sustained by a customer in its Woy Woy store, after a mountain bike in a heavy, oversized box fell from another customer's shopping trolley, injuring Ms Rita Marmara. The New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld...

Can a Shareholder claim against a Company?

A shareholder can claim against a company under some circumstances. Shareholders have specific rights and interests in a company, and there are scenarios where they might have grounds to make a claim. Some common situations include: Breach of Shareholder Agreement: If...