In the case of Mohammed Mustapha v Attorney-General, Ministry of Health & 2 Others (Suit No. GJ/1043/2020), the General Jurisdiction 7 of the High Court has ruled in favor of Mr. Mustapha, awarding him GH¢3 million in damages against the Greater Accra Regional Hospital (Ridge), the Ministry of Health, and the Attorney-General. The court found the defendants negligent in the death of Mr. Mustapha’s pregnant wife, who died after undergoing a Caesarian Section (CS) surgical procedure.
In a case filed in 2020, following the death of his wife in July 2019, the Plaintiff sought damages of GH¢5 million against the Greater Accra Regional Hospital (Ridge) and other defendants. In a judgment delivered on July 31, 2024, the Court upheld the Plaintiff’s claims, awarding him GH¢3 million in damages. This amount represents more than half of the initial claim, acknowledging the hospital’s negligent conduct leading to the wife’s death.
According to the writ of the Plaintiff, Mohammed Mustapha, and the submission filed by his lawyer, Yaw Twumasi Ankrah, the events leading to the death of his wife, Akua Nyarko Osei-Bonsu, unfolded as follows: Akua was a patient at Ridge Hospital in July 2019, when she was approximately 12 months pregnant, and regularly visited the hospital for antenatal care and medical examinations necessary for the wellbeing of both her and her baby. In November 2019, Ridge Hospital requested that Akua undergo a Doppler Scan, and when the results were submitted in December 2019, she was diagnosed with severe Intrauterine Growth Restriction (IUGR) with an Abnormal Umbilical Artery Doppler, a condition indicating placental insufficiency.
Following her diagnosis, the Plaintiff’s deceased wife was scheduled for an emergency Caesarean Section (CS) on December 16, 2019, in an effort to save both her life and that of her baby. Prior to the surgery, the Plaintiff was required to purchase a Caesarean Section (CS) pack from the pharmacy of the 4th Defendant Hospital, which he did. The pack contained essential medication for the procedure and post-operative care. Tragically, after undergoing the Caesarean Section (CS), the Plaintiff’s wife developed thromboembolism, a life-threatening condition that ultimately led to her death. Sadly, the baby also did not survive.
The Plaintiff alleges that the 4th Defendant Hospital and its staff were negligent in their care, leading to his wife’s development of thromboembolism and subsequent death. Specifically, the Plaintiff claims that the hospital failed to follow its own standard protocol, which mandates the creation and implementation of both pre-operative and post-operative plans for surgical procedures. This deviation from established protocol, the Plaintiff argues, directly contributed to the tragic outcome.
As part of its standard protocols, the 4th Defendant was obligated to create a comprehensive pre-operation and post-operation management plan prior to performing the surgery on the deceased. This plan should have outlined all necessary measures, including medications and activities, to ensure the patient’s well-being before and after the procedure. Despite the Plaintiff’s efforts to procure an anticoagulant for the surgery, the 4th Defendant negligently failed to administer it to the deceased. Furthermore, the 4th Defendant’s standard practice requires the administration of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy within 12 hours following a Caesarean Section (CS), a crucial step that was conspicuously absent from the deceased’s management plan.
The 4th Defendant breached its duty of care by failing to ensure that all pre-operative and post-operative activities were properly documented in the management plan, a critical oversight that had devastating consequences. Notably, the defendant’s protocols explicitly require the administration of prophylactic anticoagulant therapy following a Caesarean Section (CS), yet this life-saving treatment was withheld from the deceased. This egregious omission is particularly alarming given the defendant’s knowledge of the deceased’s heightened risk of pulmonary thromboembolism due to her weight, medical condition, and surgical procedure. By neglecting to adhere to established protocols and administer the necessary therapy, the 4th Defendant’s actions directly contributed to the tragic and avoidable death of the deceased.
The Plaintiff further alleges that, given his wife’s high-risk assessment for developing pulmonary embolism, the 4th Defendant Hospital had a responsibility to take all necessary precautions to prevent this complication. Despite the Plaintiff’s proactive efforts to procure Fragmin, the required anticoagulant to prevent embolism, the hospital failed to administer it. Moreover, the Plaintiff highlights that the 4th Defendant’s pharmacy had an adequate stock of anticoagulants, which are covered under the National Health Insurance Scheme, making it even more inexcusable that the necessary treatment was not provided. By failing to take these critical steps, the 4th Defendant Hospital neglected its duty of care and contributed to the tragic outcome.
The Plaintiff asserts that, beyond administering anticoagulants, there are additional measures to prevent postpartum embolism, including the use of compression stockings and early mobilization to enhance blood circulation. However, the 4th Defendant Hospital failed to implement any of these simple yet effective measures, thereby neglecting their duty to provide adequate care. The Plaintiff’s case is that the hospital’s staff demonstrated a shocking lack of diligence, allowing his wife’s condition to deteriorate unchecked until it was too late to administer an anticoagulant effectively. By failing to take these straightforward precautions, the 4th Defendant’s inaction directly contributed to the tragic and avoidable death of the Plaintiff’s wife.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ negligence had a devastating impact, cutting short a young marriage of less than four years and resulting in the tragic loss of his wife. He asserts that the substandard treatment she received fell woefully short of the reasonable care expected from a healthcare facility, constituting a clear breach of the National Health Policy and Ghana’s commitments to the Sustainable Development Goals aimed at improving maternal health and reducing mortality. The Plaintiff’s case highlights the Defendants’ failure to uphold their duty of care, with catastrophic consequences.
Source: happyghana.com
