Anil Koppula sues Royal Women’s Hospital for $1bn after witnessing wife’s C-section

A father who was “encouraged” to witness his wife’s C-section has sued the Royal Women’s Hospital for $1bn because he claimed seeing her organs caused him to develop a “psychotic illness”.

The Royal Women’s Hospital denied it breached its duty of care. Picture: David Crosling

A new father tried to sue a Melbourne hospital for $1bn because he claimed he developed a “psychotic illness” after seeing his wife’s internal organs during her C-section.

Anil Koppula’s wife gave birth to a healthy baby at the Royal Women’s Hospital in Sandringham in January 2018 following a successful caesarean section.

But her horrified husband alleged that after he was “encouraged” and “permitted” by the hospital staff to observe the C-section, he was traumatised upon seeing his wife’s internal organs and blood.

“The experience caused the onset of a psychotic illness,” he said.

He lodged a statement of claim in the Supreme Court years later, alleging the hospital breached a duty of care it owed to him and was liable to pay him damages.

Mr Koppula, who represented himself, assessed his damages for psychological injury at $1bn.

He told the court “his illness” led to the breakdown of his marriage.

Anil Koppula’s wife gave birth to a baby at the Royal Women’s via caesarean section.

The Royal Women’s Hospital admitted it owed to him a duty of care but denied it had breached it, also rejecting his claim that he suffered any injury.

Finding in its favour, Justice James Gorton on Tuesday threw out the lawsuit, calling it an “abuse of process”.

According to his judgment, the law prevents plaintiffs from recovering damages for non-economic loss if their injury is not a “significant injury”.

Mr Koppula confirmed he was only seeking damages for non-economic loss, or in other words, compensation for pain, suffering, inconvenience or emotional distress.

But he was assessed by a medical panel in April who found the degree of psychiatric impairment resulting from the alleged injury “did not satisfy the threshold level”.

Mr Koppula opposed the panel’s finding, but never applied for its determination to be reviewed.

This prompted the Royal Women’s Hospital to lodge an application for the proceedings to be summarily dismissed, which was granted by Justice Gorton.

“The medical panel’s determination (is) that the injury is not a significant injury,” he said.

“I am satisfied that the legal effect of the medical panel’s determination is that Mr Koppula is simply unable, as a matter of law, to recover damages for non-economic loss.”

The Royal Women’s Hospital has been contacted for comment.