Vets Operation Fees

Dal_Whinnie

Our dog had a cancerous growth on a knee joint which required surgery to remove. For this, we were referred to a specialist Veterinary Hospital by whom we were quoted for removal of the growth and signed a consent form which included following:

• Permission to undertake the surgery together with any other procedures that may be necessary
• Understanding of risk of sedation and anaesthetics
• Understanding that final fees may differ from estimate

 Following the operation, the wound did not heal, despite various attempts by our own vet. The reason, in our opinion, was failure to splint the joint so that it was impossible to keep the wound stable. 

 We subsequently had to take the dog back to the Hospital where the wound was re-opened, cleaned and re-stitched as well as being splintered. The wound than successfully healed. We were charged a further amount totalling c50% of the original cost. 

Under s55 of the Consumer Rights Act we have “the right to require the trader to perform the service again, to the extent necessary to complete its performance in conformity with the contract”.  On this basis we declined to pay the additional costs since the first operation failed to achieve what they had contracted to undertake. 

The Hospital rebutted this and referred it to their insurers who have advised that the relevant measure is a test of professional negligence and not based on the end result. Having undertaken a peer review the insurers have determined that there was no professional negligence. 

The reasoning for not using a splint has subsequently been explained to us in that this could cause rubbing sores and injuries.

My view is that the service originally quoted for would include the successful healing of the wound. No unexpected issues arose during the operation. The surgeon took the decision not to splint (which has been supported by the insurers) but having taken that decision, in my view, should actually repeat this part of the operation irrespective of whether there was any professional negligence.

I would welcome other’s views on this. 

Sandtree

Get your own expert review, letter before action, and then court... depending on how much you are prepared to gamble, thankfully animals count as chattel and so its property damage.

JHW1942

Sandtree said:

Get your own expert review, letter before action, and then court... depending on how much you are prepared to gamble, thankfully animals count as chattel and so its property damage.

Isn't it the other way around? OP hasn't paid for the second operation, meaning it's the vet that is likely to take action against the OP.

welshmoneylover

Personally, I would pay the bill and be grateful they saved my dog’s life.

boobyd

I assume no Pet insurance? Or was a limited amount policy?
When our cats and in( March my daughter's cat),the Vet practice and then the referral practice have always stated" this is the plan,however there is a risk ,.eg infection,not setting. Etc ,if this happens we need to re review and then possibly do further .
We always took this to be a further cost.

Sandtree

JHW1942 said:

Sandtree said:

Get your own expert review, letter before action, and then court... depending on how much you are prepared to gamble, thankfully animals count as chattel and so its property damage.

Isn't it the other way around? OP hasn't paid for the second operation, meaning it's the vet that is likely to take action against the OP.

Didn't read it properly... then get the expert report and be prepared to file a defence if they litigate... again depending on if you're willing to risk the fees etc if the judge rules against you.

Dal_Whinnie

Thankyou all for these comments and I certainly accept (as with any service) that there is a risk of additional complications arising and the potential increased costs to me. I am not really questioning the skill employed by the surgeon, more, I am questioning the protection of the Consumer Rights Act. The vets had the option as to whether to splint or not and did not discuss with us. As I said, the peer review undertaken by the insurers decided that there was no negligence but does that mean I have no claim under the Consumer Rights Act? If that is the position Is there any case law which supports this conclusion?

JHW1942

It's not that you have a claim, after all, you owe them money.  It's about whether you have the evidence to contest their claim from you.

Dal_Whinnie

JHW1942 said:

It's not that you have a claim, after all, you owe them money.  It's about whether you have the evidence to contest their claim from you.

OK, what evidence do I need? What rights do I have under the Consumer Rights Act?

Flight3287462

welshmoneylover said:

Personally, I would pay the bill and be grateful they saved my dog’s life.

We had a horse with ligament issues, vets operated followed by 6 months of recuperation.  Bill was over £15k.  After 6 months the horse (£20k and top 5 year olds in the UK in his discipline) was worse than before we started.  Result horse shot and £35k down the drain.

OP I think you need to pay the bill first and then take them to court.  I suggest legal advice and a second opinion before taking any action.

Sandtree

Dal_Whinnie said:
 I am not really questioning the skill employed by the surgeon, more, I am questioning the protection of the Consumer Rights Act. The vets had the option as to whether to splint or not and did not discuss with us. As I said, the peer review undertaken by the insurers decided that there was no negligence but does that mean I have no claim under the Consumer Rights Act? If that is the position Is there any case law which supports this conclusion?

If you aren't questioning their decision then you owe them the money.

If you are questioning their decision then you need to get your own expert evidence to prove that they were negligent. You could wait until they issue against you but in human med mal cases its generally better to get the evidence sooner from the experts whilst there is still evidence of the injury etc. 

Case law on something like this is going to be difficult to find unless you can unpick the medical evidence presented and workout which case yours most closely resembles.