THE Supreme Court (SC) has cleared a surgeon involved in a medical malpractice suit over a failed stent procedure.
In a decision dated April 2, 2025 but only recently made public, the SC ruled that a doctor who offered proper medical advice, clearly explained the risk of the procedure and secured proper consent cannot be held liable for malpractice.
The ruling of the SC Second Division, which was penned by RETIRED Associate Justice Mario Lopez, upheld the dismissal of the complaint against Dr. Avelino Aventura, head of the Philippine Heart Center – Surgery Department, for the death of his patient Quintin Que.
Records of the case showed that Aventura was sued by Elpidio Que, who accused him of malpractice for the death of his father following a failed stenting procedure.
The elder Que was first brought to Aventura after complaining of hoarseness due to aneurysm in the aortic arc which affected his vocal cords.
A CT scan that showed that the condition was life-threatening prompted Aventura to advise Que to undergo a heart bypass operation, which turned out to be a success.
However, after several months, Que’s aneurysm worsened and Aventura offered his family two options to deal with the situation – an open chest surgery or a less invasive stenting procedure.
Initially hesitant, the Que family eventually obliged to the procedure for their patriarch after being assured it was safer and had less complications.
Aventura in his defense said he told the family that neither of the procedures guaranteed success, and that there was still a risk that the patient would die if the stenting procedure is done.
He also told the court that he informed the family that he would not perform the procedure himself due to the risk involved. He introduced the Ques to visiting Belgian specialist Dr. Verhoeven.
The patient consented to have Verhoeven do the procedure.
But during the procedure, the elder Que suffered a stroke and died, prompting his family to sue for medical malpractice.
The case was elevated to the SC after the family lost the case before the regional trial court and the Court of Appeals.
The SC however upheld the RTC and CA rulings, ruling that Aventura was not negligent and did not commit medical malpractice as alleged in the suit.
It held that medical malpractice occurs when a doctor fails to deliver the standard of care expected from a medical professional, resulting to harm to the patient.
A basis of malpractice is the lack of informed consent, or when a patient agrees to an operation or procedure without being informed about the risk and expected outcome.
The SC said these were not present in the case against Aventura.
“Dr. Aventura clearly informed Quintin and his family about the risks associated with the stenting procedure, including the risk of death,” it noted, adding that the doctor had informed the family that another doctor would do the procedure, which was approved by the patient.
Likewise, the High Court cited the testimonies of experts in cardiovascular and endovascualar surgery who told the trial that stenting was a medically appropriate and reasonable treatment to the patient, given his condition at the time.
“They confirmed that despite the risks, it was a sound medical choice compared to open chest surgery,” the SC ruled in junking the complaint.
