§ PUBLISHED JUDGMENT · 2025

Julia Tosh v Vivek Gupta

[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)·High Court (King's Bench Division)·31 July 2025

The claimant developed anal stenosis after a private haemorrhoidectomy and argued her haemorrhoids had been over-graded, non-surgical options were not discussed and the stenosis risk was not explained. The judge found the grading was correct, alternatives were discussed and the risk was disclosed on the consent form and in the information leaflet, so the claim was dismissed.

Outcome

Claim failed

Sum stated in judgment

Not stated

Claim type

Surgical Errors

Decided

Liability decided at trial

G
ClaimGavel Assistant
● Online · Surgical Errors · free & confidential
FREE
TELL US WHAT HAPPENED — TYPE HERE

Start typing — your likely claim, value and time limit appear here.

Describe what happened (a sentence or two) to begin.

Free · confidential · not legal adviceEngland

§ WHAT HAPPENED

The facts, in brief.

Defendant: Mr Vivek Gupta (consultant general, colorectal and laparoscopic surgeon; private practice at Rivers Hospital)

Injury: Anal stenosis with severe, life-changing bowel symptoms following a LigaSure haemorrhoidectomy on 13 June 2019

Specialty: Colorectal surgery · England

§ WHAT THE COURT SAID

In the judgment’s own words.

“This claim is therefore dismissed.”

The money

Claim dismissed; no figure stated.

§ WHY IT MATTERS

What this case shows.

Documented consent, including a signed form and a written leaflet naming the specific complication, can be decisive in defeating a Montgomery consent claim.

About surgical errors claims →

§ MORE SURGICAL ERRORS JUDGMENTS

Claim failed

Tarrant v Monkhouse

[2025] EWHC 2576 (KB)·2025·Liability decided at trial

After a sleeve gastrectomy the claimant had trouble swallowing; the surgeon performed a gastroscopy and balloon dilatation, after which the sleeve leaked. The judge found no breach of duty in the post-operative care or the dilatation and dismissed the claim despite the very serious consequences.

A bad outcome after a recognised complication is not enough; the claimant must show the treatment decision fell outside what a responsible body of surgeons would do. Sympathy for the patient does not change the legal test.

Claimant succeeded

MJF v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 3156 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

A young woman with cerebral palsy had a PEG feeding tube inserted and was found unresponsive two days later with peritonitis and sepsis. The judge rejected the doctor's account of how the tube was fixed, found it was placed under too much tension, and entered judgment for the claimant.

Where a clinician's recollection is unreliable and contradicted by the physical evidence, the court can find a procedure was done negligently. Causation may still be limited where a pre-existing condition would have deteriorated anyway.

Claim failed

Philippa Caroline Deakin-Stephenson v Nebil Behar and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EWHC 2338 (KB)·2024·Liability decided at trial

Admitted with perforated diverticulitis, the claimant had a laparoscopic washout and deteriorated about 36 hours later, needing an emergency Hartmann's procedure with a stoma and intensive care. She alleged she had asked for a colorectal referral, was improperly moved to private care and was not properly consented, but the judge found none of this proved and dismissed the claims against both the surgeon and the trust.

Consent disputes turn on evidence of what was actually discussed; where the records and the surgeon's account show the alternative procedure was explained, a claim based on inadequate consent is likely to fail.

All surgical errors judgments →

Contains information licensed under the Open Justice - Licence v2.0. Judgments from Find Case Law, The National Archives. Summaries are ours; amounts only where printed in the judgment.

This guide is general information about the law in England and Wales, not legal advice about your case. ClaimGavel is run by Costart Projects Ltd on behalf of Tomlin & Partners, a specialist medical negligence firm regulated by the SRA. The free assessment on this page is an AI overview to show you roughly where you stand; a solicitor confirms the position in a free, no-obligation conversation.