Material facts
The plaintiff's three-year-old daughter Suhani, was presented to the defendant with the complaint of dragging of feet. The defendant examined the child and observed involuntary movements of the upper limbs based on which she made a diagnosis ofLegal issues
The plaintiff charged that the defendant was negligent in not diagnosing brain stem glioma and in the misdiagnosis of rheumatic chorea. Had a timely diagnosis been made, it was argued by the plaintiff, survival or prolongation of life would have been possible. Although the plaintiff listed several specialist doctors including Professor Lamabadusuriya as witnesses, only Dr. Srilal Dias was called to give evidence. It was alleged by his counsel that doctors in the country were reluctant to testify against the defendant in view of her esteemed standing in the medical profession. Dr. Dias claimed that, had the BSG been diagnosed earlier, curative radiotherapy or surgery would have been possible. His claim was disputed by all expert witnesses who testified for the defendant, including the eminent neurosurgeon Dr. Shelton Cabraal. Since the tumour was found in the brain stem region it is extremely unlikely that any form of treatment would have had prospect of cure. The defendant argued that since Professor Lamabadusuriya too made an initial diagnosis of rheumatic chorea and ordered a CT scan only two days later, she was not negligent in her care. This argument was rejected by the courts, including the supreme court, which held that the defendant was negligent in not ordering a CT scan. Since brain stem glioma was a terminal condition with no prospect of effective treatment, it was also argued for the defendant that even if her negligence was established, causation had not been proved and as such the plaintiff's action should fail. It was on this ground that the supreme court allowed her appeal.The trial
The case lasted almost a decade, traversing the full extent of litigation in the country, from the District Court of Colombo to the Court of Appeal to finally the Supreme Court. The District Court upheld the plaintiff's case and awarded him Rs.5,000,000 (around US$125,000 at the time) and costs. Arseculeratne was represented by eminent civil lawyer President's Counsel Romesh de Silva throughout the proceedings while Professor Soysa was defended by Queen's Counsel Vernon Wijetunga at the District Court, and later by President's Counsel H.L. de Silva and senior lawyer R.K.W. Goonesekere at the appellate courts. Professor Soysa's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed, however the assessment of damages was reduced as under the Common Law of Sri Lanka, which is Roman Dutch law, damages could only be awarded for patrimonial loss. The Supreme Court allowed Professor Soysa's appeal, setting aside the judgments of both lower courts. In a judgment heavily critical of the decisions of the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that causation was not established on a balance of probabilities by the plaintiff. The defendant was also allowed costs of action, which she declined to accept.References
* Goonaratna Colvin. ''A Doctor's Quest for Justice: Prof. Priyani Soysa Vs. Rienzie Arseculeratne.'' Vijitha Yapa Publishers. 2005