This case comes before the court on C’s claim of negligence against D1, and D2 in respect of private surgery performed to C’s right eye by D1 at the D2 hospital on 23 August 2013 to insert an intraocular lens visual implant, the IOL-VIP Revolution. 
The 9 particular allegations of negligence that were pursued at trial… fell into two distinct strands: firstly a failure properly or adequately to obtain the informed consent of C for the surgery and to perform the surgery without such consent… and secondly the failure to diagnose and treat in a timely manner C’s raised intra ocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma between 25 September 2013… and 13 December 2013 said to have caused significant, permanent and irreversible damage to her right eye. It was not said that the surgery itself had been performed negligently, but the claimant’s challenge was to the fact that the surgery was performed at all. 
this is a case that turns on its facts… there were no controversial areas of law 
the informed consent of C was not obtained from C before she underwent surgery and D1 was negligent in the consenting process. 
If she had been correctly informed that the surgery would not have enabled her to read magazines again and carried a risk of complications she would not have elected to have the operation on her right eye on that, or any other day. 
Liability and causation are therefore established against D1 in relation to consent 
it logically follows that D1 is liable for all the consequences of her subsequent glaucoma, the second set of negligence allegations become somewhat academic. 
in relation to the second set of allegations D1 failed to provide the claimant with advice, care and surgical treatment to the reasonable standard expected which caused the glaucoma damage to her right eye leaving her with no perception of light in that eye and that D1 is liable to her in damages.