By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
RULE OF LAW
By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Failure to verify exact location of IUD
prior to removal is negligence
Dr. Ramos relied on the x-ray and pathology reports of other physicians in assessing Pascual’s condition. To recall, Pascual underwent an x-ray scan at the Nazarenus College Foundation Hospital, which yielded a result that the IUD was “in placed.” Further, Pascual was examined by Dr. Valdez on the same date of the operation, where it was found that her cervix was infected and inflamed, endometrial tissues in the walls of the uterus were present, and she had lutein cysts or a corpus luteum which had undergone cystic changes or dilation.
As there was no evidence submitted by both parties regarding the established standard procedures by medical professionals in the extraction of an IUD, the Court is not in the position to conclude whether the negligence committed by Dr. Ramos was simple or gross. Bad faith cannot be presumed and can only be established by clear and convincing evidence. Without it, the Court cannot rule that Dr. Ramos committed willful and intentional breach of duty.
However, the Court may evaluate whether Dr. Ramos exercised prudence in relying on the x-ray report before extracting the IUD from Pascual’s uterus. As the x-ray report was two-dimensional (2D), an exhaustive three-dimensional (3D) approach would have accurately shown the IUD’s location. From this, it appears that Dr. Ramos had been negligent in failing to take measures to verify the exact location of the IUD.
While it is true that there was negligence on the part of Dr. Ramos, contributory negligence may be ascribed to Pascual, thus justifying a mitigation of the damages she is entitled to. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he/she has suffered, which falls below the standard which he/she is required to conform for his/her own protection. It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured, which, concurring with the defendant’s negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury. In the instant case, Pascual allowed 20 years to pass before having her IUD removed, considering that the maximum period that an IUD could remain inside a uterus is estimated at 10 years. As there is no evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular and that the ordinary course of business has been followed, and Pascual had been informed by the physician who installed the IUD in her uterus that the device would expire in 10 years and that the same should be removed. The unusual migration of the IUD could have been averted had Pascual sought the removal of the IUD prior to its expiration. (Dr. Montano G. Ramos General Hospital v. Pascual, G.R. No. 256651 [August 30, 2023])