GYNESCOPE CASE: PANEL REFERS TWO DOCTORS TO DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

By Victoria Tokolo

The Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel has referred two doctors associated with Gynescope Specialist Hospital, Lekki, Lagos State, to the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal over allegations arising from the death of 32-year-old Mrs Lovelyn Akudo John following childbirth in December 2025.

The referral followed an investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death. However, it does not amount to a finding of guilt or establish medical negligence, as the allegations against the doctors remain subject to further proceedings.

Mrs John delivered a baby at the hospital on December 3, 2025, but developed complications later that day. She was subsequently transferred to another medical facility in the early hours of December 4, where she was pronounced dead.

Her husband, Justice U. John, accused the hospital and its medical personnel of negligence, citing alleged inadequacies in oxygen supply, improper repair of an episiotomy, delays in arranging an ambulance transfer and an alleged incident involving a stretcher.

However, the hospital has disputed several of the allegations, maintaining that the patient received medical attention, including blood transfusions, medication, intravenous fluids and consultations with specialists.

According to documents cited by the hospital, five units of blood were administered to the deceased, including two donated by hospital staff. The hospital also maintained that its consultant reviewed the patient during the night and that arrangements were made for her transfer after her condition deteriorated.

Another major point of contention is the post-mortem examination conducted on December 6, 2025, at the request of the deceased’s family, with the hospital’s medical director in attendance.

According to the hospital’s account of the autopsy findings, the cause of death was linked to massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage associated with intestinal diverticulosis.

The hospital further stated that the examination revealed no fatal uterine bleeding, retained placenta or traumatic external injuries consistent with the alleged fall.

However, the autopsy findings do not, in themselves, conclusively establish whether the patient’s condition was identified and managed in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care.

The hospital also challenged aspects of the complainant’s account, citing alleged inconsistencies in affidavits concerning oxygen availability, arrangements for the proposed ambulance transfer and the reported stretcher incident.

On the oxygen allegation, the hospital referred to affidavits in which the complainant initially claimed that oxygen was unavailable in the ward but subsequently acknowledged the presence of a wall-mounted oxygen outlet, while alleging that the necessary tubing was missing.

The hospital also disputed claims that its ambulance broke down during the transfer, stating that the vehicle was purchased new in March 2025.

It further maintained that the patient did not fall from the stretcher, although the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident remain disputed.

The controversy took another turn in July 2026 when Fortress Solicitors, acting on behalf of the complainant, demanded N500 million in compensation over alleged medical negligence and related misconduct.

The hospital rejected the demand two days later, maintaining that negligence had not been established.

Separately, the hospital complained that public statements and media reports had damaged the reputations of its medical personnel before the allegations were conclusively determined.

The case has raised questions about medical accountability, the interpretation of forensic evidence and the need to safeguard the rights of patients and healthcare professionals during investigations.

While the deceased’s family is entitled to seek answers and pursue any legitimate claims, the allegations against the doctors must be determined through the appropriate legal and professional processes.

The referral of the two doctors to the disciplinary tribunal marks a further stage in the proceedings. Any determination of professional misconduct or negligence will depend on the evidence presented and considered by the competent authorities.GYNESCOPE CASE: PANEL REFERS TWO DOCTORS TO DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

By Victoria Tokolo

The Medical and Dental Practitioners Investigation Panel has referred two doctors associated with Gynescope Specialist Hospital, Lekki, Lagos State, to the Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal over allegations arising from the death of 32-year-old Mrs Lovelyn Akudo John following childbirth in December 2025.

The referral followed an investigation into the circumstances surrounding her death. However, it does not amount to a finding of guilt or establish medical negligence, as the allegations against the doctors remain subject to further proceedings.

Mrs John delivered a baby at the hospital on December 3, 2025, but developed complications later that day. She was subsequently transferred to another medical facility in the early hours of December 4, where she was pronounced dead.

Her husband, Justice U. John, accused the hospital and its medical personnel of negligence, citing alleged inadequacies in oxygen supply, improper repair of an episiotomy, delays in arranging an ambulance transfer and an alleged incident involving a stretcher.

However, the hospital has disputed several of the allegations, maintaining that the patient received medical attention, including blood transfusions, medication, intravenous fluids and consultations with specialists.

According to documents cited by the hospital, five units of blood were administered to the deceased, including two donated by hospital staff. The hospital also maintained that its consultant reviewed the patient during the night and that arrangements were made for her transfer after her condition deteriorated.

Another major point of contention is the post-mortem examination conducted on December 6, 2025, at the request of the deceased’s family, with the hospital’s medical director in attendance.

According to the hospital’s account of the autopsy findings, the cause of death was linked to massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage associated with intestinal diverticulosis.

The hospital further stated that the examination revealed no fatal uterine bleeding, retained placenta or traumatic external injuries consistent with the alleged fall.

However, the autopsy findings do not, in themselves, conclusively establish whether the patient’s condition was identified and managed in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care.

The hospital also challenged aspects of the complainant’s account, citing alleged inconsistencies in affidavits concerning oxygen availability, arrangements for the proposed ambulance transfer and the reported stretcher incident.

On the oxygen allegation, the hospital referred to affidavits in which the complainant initially claimed that oxygen was unavailable in the ward but subsequently acknowledged the presence of a wall-mounted oxygen outlet, while alleging that the necessary tubing was missing.

The hospital also disputed claims that its ambulance broke down during the transfer, stating that the vehicle was purchased new in March 2025.

It further maintained that the patient did not fall from the stretcher, although the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident remain disputed.

The controversy took another turn in July 2026 when Fortress Solicitors, acting on behalf of the complainant, demanded N500 million in compensation over alleged medical negligence and related misconduct.

The hospital rejected the demand two days later, maintaining that negligence had not been established.

Separately, the hospital complained that public statements and media reports had damaged the reputations of its medical personnel before the allegations were conclusively determined.

The case has raised questions about medical accountability, the interpretation of forensic evidence and the need to safeguard the rights of patients and healthcare professionals during investigations.

While the deceased’s family is entitled to seek answers and pursue any legitimate claims, the allegations against the doctors must be determined through the appropriate legal and professional processes.

The referral of the two doctors to the disciplinary tribunal marks a further stage in the proceedings. Any determination of professional misconduct or negligence will depend on the evidence presented and considered by the competent authorities.