A 59-year-old man presented himself in November 2014 at a private sanatorium for a follow-up video colonoscopy. The goal was to remove two polyps through polypectomy. The procedure ended around noon, and he was discharged. Hours later, around 7 PM, he returned with severe pain, high fever, and pallor.
The doctors decided to perform open surgery. The patient reported that during the colonoscopy, he had suffered perforations and burns in the intestine. The situation led to an abdominal infection and the placement of tubes. From there, a long recovery process began.
He had to undergo several surgeries and nearly a year of treatments to reconstruct intestinal transit and manage the aftermath. After that ordeal, he decided to file a malpractice lawsuit against those responsible for the medical care.
He argued that the perforation was not an inevitable consequence of the procedure but rather the result of inadequate professional conduct. The defense, on the other hand, argued that it was one of the inherent risks of a colonoscopy.
The medical expert opinion was key in the ruling
The case reached the Civil and Commercial Court of San Nicolás. One of the central pieces of evidence was the expert opinion conducted by a specialist appointed in the process. The report carried significant weight.
The expert explained that video colonoscopy can lead to complications such as bleeding and intestinal perforation, and that these are known risks of the medical practice. Additionally, it was established that these risks had been communicated to the patient before the procedure.
With these elements, the first-instance judge concluded that the perforation did not, by itself, demonstrate the existence of malpractice. He also found no evidence of professional error or technical defect in the equipment. For that reason, he rejected the lawsuit.
The man appealed and again questioned whether the injury could simply be considered a complication inherent to the procedure. The case then went to the Civil and Commercial Appeals Chamber of San Nicolás.
The Chamber confirmed the rejection
The court considered that the appeal did not concretely challenge the conclusions of the previous ruling. It highlighted that the official expert opinion had not been contested with scientific arguments capable of calling its conclusions into question.
The judges noted that the report was clear in stating that perforation can occur during a colonoscopy even when the procedure is performed correctly. They also analyzed the claim regarding the responsibility for the equipment used.
They explained that objective responsibility related to things or instruments used in a medical practice requires proving a defect or technical flaw, something that was not demonstrated in this case. It was not enough to show that the instruments could cause harm: it was necessary to prove a specific failure or negligent medical conduct.
None of that was demonstrated during the process. The Chamber understood that the patient's arguments did not undermine the conclusions of the expert opinion or the foundations of the first-instance ruling. Therefore, it declared the appeal void and confirmed the rejection of the lawsuit.
The court also ruled that the man would have to bear the costs of the trial. Despite the consequences of the perforation and the extensive treatment he had to undergo, the Justice concluded that it was not proven that the injury was caused by medical error or equipment failure.
The central point of the ruling was that a known complication of a medical practice does not, by itself, imply that there was malpractice. For a claim of professional liability to succeed, there must be elements that link the damage to negligent, unskilled conduct or a technical defect, something that was not proven in this case.
