Gallardo v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 3147 (QB) (08 December 2017)

…the requirement of informed consent to medical treatment is now a fundamental and settled principle of the law in both England and Wales and Scotland. (paragraph 1)

This case is concerned with what should happen following treatment and the duty to inform the patient of its outcome, the prognosis, and of any requirement for follow up and further treatment or monitoring. (paragraph 2)
C underwent major abdominal surgery… in 2001. A malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) was removed. It is his case that he was never informed of the malignancy and the risk that it might recur. Neither was he told that he would need regular monitoring and CT scans. (paragraph 3)

The cancer did recur and, in 2011, he underwent further major surgery. His condition is now closely monitored, and he is likely to have another operation in the near future. (paragraph 4)

D’s primary case is that C was properly informed after surgery of the malignancy and the risk of recurrence. The question of liability is further complicated, though, by the fact that in the post-operative period C from the NHS into a private room at the hospital and was thereafter treated by his surgeon, Mr Nikitas Theodorou, as a private patient. (paragraph 5)

Mr Theodorou died in 2014. He has played no part in these proceedings. D contends that any breach of duty occurred when C was a private patient and that it is not the responsibility of the hospital trust. (paragraph 6)

C maintains that he should have been informed of the outcome of his surgery before he became a private patient, but even if this is not found to be so, it does not absolve D from liability. (paragraph 7)

[There was detailed consideration of the medical history and expert evidence. Montgomery was considered and applied.]

judgment for the C… (paragraph 140)