section 75 cap one cc and pip implants help please !!

crystal_clear

!!!!!! wrote: »

As a matter of interest have you actually discussed this with your GP or a doctor or is this just a case of you wanting them replaced even though there is no evidence that they are/will be a problem to you?

I have been to my GP yes and only yesterday went the hospital for x-ray on my chest for pains. I also have a lump appeared which GP is aware of aswell. But GP is not that helpful knowing I have had private implants and that I am having them taken out in just over 5 weeks time.

This is all technically irrelevant though as i purchased something that was not fit for the purpose it was meant for. The cohesive gel is industrial gel used in matteresses not meant for the human body and falls into section 75 on its own.

crystal clear

ILW

How do you know the replacements will be any "safer"?

Te surgeon sounds like he is making a fortune replacing faulty items thet he supplied in the first place.

I would have thought he should be liable.

lisyloo

How do you know the replacements will be any "safer"?

One cannot know everything personally, however we do know a couple of things
1) The industry in general are aware of the issue so will be taking steps to ensure the problem is corrected to be best of the ability of the scientific knowledge available.
2) Clinics are being sued and therefore there will be a big push to make sure this doesn't happen again, I would expect there would be detailed records and checks being done.

However no-one can know 100%.
I'm sure Crystal knew there were risk when under going surgery. There are always risks in ANY surgery, plus there is the unknown.
I am sure she has considered the option of going without but this simply isn't an option for some people.

crystal_clear

ILW wrote: »

How do you know the replacements will be any "safer"?

Te surgeon sounds like he is making a fortune replacing faulty items thet he supplied in the first place.

I would have thought he should be liable.

I dont know but then PIP were originally passed as safe it wasnt until after they were found to be using different gel than they were originally passed for use with and the PIP owner is now in Jail for illegally manufactuing goods of sub standard to mak more money. Given the coverage I doubt any other implant manufacturer would be so stupid to risk jail by not meeting all there regulation codes going forward.

Crystal clear

ILW

Why is the surgeon who supplied you the goods not liable as with any other product?

crystal_clear

ILW wrote: »

Why is the surgeon who supplied you the goods not liable as with any other product?

The surgeon is taking part responsibility in that he has offered to replace the implants without charge but his hopsital and operating fees still need to be met ..... so I am getting the removal and replacement done at a reduced cost. But still its all additional costs to me that I would rather not have had to go through again (well until it was nearer the time for me to plan ahead due to them having around a 15 yr life expectancy some longer).

The surgeon is therefore buying in implants and fitting them free at his own cost technically. This however still means i pay his surgery time my flight hotel taxis to from hospital etc and its just mounting the expences back at me.

Crystal clear

lisyloo

The surgeon is therefore buying in implants and fitting them free at his own cost technically. This however still means i pay his surgery time my flight hotel taxis to from hospital etc and its just mounting the expences back at me.

But the surgeon is still liable for the whole costs in law isn't he/she?

I would be very careful here that you do not sign anything to say that you accept this "in full and final settlement". So be very careful what you sign.
If you "settle" the case with the surgeon for his lower offer then that may prejudice you going back for more.

Did you check your home insurance yet? to see if you have free legal cover?
I am not a lawyer but I'm concerned that you will be prejudicing your claim by accepting his offer.

The credit card company will also want to know what you have done to settle the claim with the surgeon.

These boards are great for knocking around issues and bringing out issues, but we are not legal experts and you should get proper legal advice especially if it's available to you for free. Check your home insurance and your union at work.

ILW

The fact that the original surgeon has corrected the error will most likely mean that the card company will accept no liability.

crystal_clear

I do have home legal cover and will be giving them a call as you suggested.

But its your points about taking on his offer that could be seen as a settlement in order for cc to get out of section 75 that I was looking for within my original post.
I want to make sure i do nothing whatsoever to predjudice my claim in anyway. Whilst a really good point having thought about it I wouldnt have thought CC could get out of it as I comply with all. Having purchased goods and services not fit for the purpose intended. I have tried to resolve with the surgeon as would be requested of me and I am forced to pay again to get what I originally intended. So I dont technically have a choice butto pay then claim as all costs are compounded from the original cost. If i am correct in my way of thinking.

Crystal clear

ILW

Your legal cover will most likely help you sue the surgeon for supply of faulty goods. Using him again will severely weaken any case you may have.