Hospital ordered to pay victim's heir for botched operation

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has ordered owners of The Medical City Hospital to pay P15 million to heirs of a victim of a surgical operation that went awry in 1984.

In a full Court resolution, the SC affirmed its rulings on Jan. 31, 2007 and Feb. 11, 2008 that held the hospital liable for the negligence of Dr. Miguel Ampil, the doctor-consultant who left two pieces of gauze inside the body of his patient, Natividad Agana, after conducting surgical procedure for her “cancer of the sigmoid.”

It junked the second motion for reconsideration filed by Professional Services Inc., (PSI) the owner and operator of the hospital. But the Court clarified in its ruling that the case should not serve as precedent that all hospitals can be held liable for the negligence of their physicians and consultants.

“All this notwithstanding, we make it clear that PSI’s hospital liability based on ostensible agency and corporate negligence applies only to this case, pro hac vice. It is not intended to set a precedent and should not serve as a basis to hold hospitals liable for every form of negligence of their doctor-consultants under any and all circumstances,” the Court said in a 26-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Renato Corona. The Court explained that the ruling is “unique to this case,” as the liability of PSI “ arose from an implied agency with Ampil and an admitted corporate duty to the patient Natividad Agana.”

Earlier, the Manila Medical Services, Inc. (MMSA), Asian Hospital Inc. (AHI), and Private Hospital Association of the Philippines sought to intervene in the case saying that, unless modified, the ruling will jeopardize the financial viability of private hospitals and jack up the cost of health care.

The special first division of the Court granted the motions for intervention of MMSI, AHI and PHAP but referred to the full Court the second motion for reconsideration filed by PSI.

The SC reiterated its earlier findings that PSI had made judicial admission that while it had no power to control the means or method by which Dr. Ampil conducted the surgery on the patient, Agana, it had the power to review or cause the review of what may have irregularly transpired during the surgery.

“By such admission PSI barred itself from arguing in its second motion for reconsideration that the concept of corporate responsibility was not yet in existence at the time Natividad underwent treatment; and that if it had any corporate responsibility, the same was limited to reporting the missing gauzes and did not include taking an active step in fixing the negligence committed,” it stressed.

The SC, in its 2008 resolution, affirmed its 2007 decision ordering the owners of the MCH and Ampil to pay P3 million to the heirs of Agana, who died in 1986 while civil suit was still pending before the trial court.