The High Court in Suva has dismissed a long-running medical negligence lawsuit brought by a Labasa couple against the Ministry of Health, hospital administrators and the State, ruling that no breach of duty of care was proven.
Justice Deepthi Amaratunga struck out the plaintiffs’ claim and ordered that no costs be awarded. The judgment was delivered on 1 December 2025.
The first plaintiff, Lila Wati, a 61-year-old vegetable farmer and housewife from Naduna, Labasa, underwent an arthroscopic knee procedure at Labasa Hospital in November 2015 after sustaining a meniscal tear.
She later developed severe swelling, pain and loss of mobility in her left knee, which was eventually diagnosed at CWM Hospital as septic arthritis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a serious bacterial infection. Her condition ultimately required a total knee replacement overseas.
Together with her husband, Dhruv Deo, the plaintiffs alleged that the infection and subsequent deterioration of her knee were caused by negligence at both Labasa Hospital and CWM Hospital.
Claims included failure to maintain sterile surgical equipment, unnecessary surgery, delayed diagnosis, inappropriate treatment and inadequate post-operative care.
The second plaintiff, Dhruv Deo also sought damages for economic loss, arguing he had to abandon his farming work to care for his wife full-time.
The defendants denied liability, arguing that the arthroscopy was medically justified, properly consented to, and carried out in accordance with accepted standards. They maintained that infection is a known risk of surgery and that the particular bacteria involved is evasive, difficult to detect and may arise from multiple sources, including a patient’s own flora or pre-existing conditions.
In her ruling, Justice Amaratunga found that the plaintiffs failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the infection was caused by negligence.
The court accepted expert evidence that Pseudomonas aeruginosa can remain dormant and that its presence after surgery does not automatically establish fault.
The judge also noted that the first plaintiff had signed a consent form clearly outlining the risk of infection.
The court held that both hospitals had met the required standard of care. The action was struck out in its entirety, with no order as to costs.
