When a patient suffers from post-operative problems, it is normal for any resultant legal claim to be made against the health service provider.
Recently, however, a case of this kind was (unusually) dealt with under consumer law.
It involved a hip prosthesis, which was fitted during a hip replacement operation. The device split in two after implantation and had to be replaced. When it was removed, it was found to be defective and the patient sued the manufacturer, alleging that the defect causing the fracture was present when the prosthesis was made and that it had been supplied in a defective state to the hospital.
In this case, the claimant failed to prove the case. The manufacturer’s quality control and inspection procedures were such that the court took the view that the prosthesis was not likely to have been defective when supplied.
