Case study - Hernia repair

...Mr K claims he was unaware he'd be undergoing open surgery and did not understand the risks...

  • Date: 23 April 2020


Mr K is 51 years old and works in finance. He presents to his GP with an abdominal bulge in the left groin and pain, especially on bending or lifting. He is diagnosed with an inguinal hernia and referred to a surgical unit.


Mr K is admitted to hospital and undergoes a laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair, using surgical mesh. He is discharged after two days, with advice on pain relief.


The patient re-attends his GP complaining of persistent pain and some swelling in the left groin. He is referred back to the surgical unit. An MRI reveals no problem related to the mesh and no recurrence of the hernia. The surgeon advises Mr K that there appears to be some fatty infiltration of the inguinal canal (cord lipoma) and this may be causing discomfort but she would be reluctant to embark on further surgery. She refers the case to a senior colleague.


Mr K is admitted for surgery and signs a consent form. Mr J undertakes open groin surgery and excises a small but elongated cord lipoma. The patient is discharged the next day but on follow-up reports that the pain has in fact grown worse. Subsequent treatment including steroid injections and neurectomy are ineffective in relieving the pain. Mr K finds sitting for any long period uncomfortable and his mobility is reduced. He is later referred to a pain clinic.


A consultant surgeon reviews the MRI and in discussion with the patient advises open groin surgery and removal of the cord lipoma. Mr K agrees but requests a private referral to avoid having to wait. The consultant contacts a colleague – Mr J – who agrees to undertake the procedure. Mr J’s secretary contacts Mr K offering an appointment to discuss the treatment but the patient (wanting no further delay) opts for a quick admission.


A LETTER is sent by solicitors acting for Mr K claiming clinical negligence in Mr J’s treatment. It alleges that the patient was not informed he would be undergoing open surgery, nor was there discussion of the procedure’s risks/benefits. Mr K claims that he would not have undergone the operation had he been fully informed.

MDDUS acting on behalf of Mr J reviews the case and commissions an expert report from a consultant surgeon. In his response, Mr J states that in the letter from the referring NHS surgeon it was clear that the proposed treatment had been discussed and agreed with the patient prior to his requesting private care in order to avoid a prolonged wait. Mr J had offered to see Mr K in clinic to further discuss the operation but the patient opted for direct admission to the surgical unit.

Mr J states that his usual practice on the day of surgery is to have a quick word with the patient to ensure understanding of the procedure and to answer any last questions. The records show that a surgical consent form was signed but the operative method is not detailed, nor is there any record of benefits and risks discussed.

The surgical expert opines that the decision to undertake open exploration and removal of the cord lipoma was appropriate. He notes that a consent form for the named procedure was signed but there was an assumption that Mr K was aware he was undergoing an open procedure and fully understood the risks/benefits. The expert states that, in his view, this constitutes a failure of informed consent and a breach of duty of care by Mr J.

In regard to causation (the consequences of the breach), the expert acknowledges that it would be up to a court to decide what Mr K might have done had he been fully informed about the open procedure and its associated risks. Had he chosen more conservative treatment Mr K would still have endured persistent chronic pain.

MDDUS decides to settle the case, with Mr J’s agreement, for a modest sum.


  • Ensure the patient understands what treatment is being proposed – this is the essence of shared decision-making.
  • Record what was discussed with the patient in regard to consent.
  • GMC guidance, Consent, states that the treating doctor has responsibility to discuss agreed plans with the patient. Always confirm consent, never assume.

This page was correct at the time of publication. Any guidance is intended as general guidance for members only. If you are a member and need specific advice relating to your own circumstances, please contact one of our advisers.

Read more from this issue of Insight Secondary

Insight - Secondary is published quarterly and distributed to MDDUS members throughout the UK who work in secondary care. It provides a mix of articles on risk, medico-legal and regulatory matters as well as general features and profiles of interest to our members.
In this issue
Insight Secondary Q2 2020

Related Content

Medico-legal principles

Roundtable part 2 - Diagnosing conditions with a slower progression

Roundtable part 1 - Dealing with serious childhood illnesses

Save this article

Save this article to a list of favourite articles which members can access in their account.

Save to library

For registration, or any login issues, please visit our login page.