Jane, a woman whose name we have changed for ethical purposes, got a shocker in June this year to know that she had been carrying a baby for 18 weeks despite being on a contraceptive.
In her court papers filed before the High Court, she says that after a home pregnancy test, she was thrilled that she would have a baby, but shocked that she had no symptoms.
The revelation that she would become a parent had her visit several hospitals, which she says either would not give her and the fiance an immediate answer or did not have female staff, who were her preferred choice to deal with.
She narrated that unfortunately, the results indicated that not only was she pregnant, the unborn child had complications which were risky to both.
Jane narrated that they opted to terminate the pregnancy, and they ended up at Marie Stopes Hospital.
Now, the service at the hospital stirred a landmark dispute, with the patient's choice of medical procedure and who to offer it being at the heart of it. In her case, Jane said that on July 2, 2025, she booked an appointment with the hospital and explained the purpose of the visit. She further said that she explicitly explained to the medical officers her fears, and the need to be attended by female practitioners.
According to her, Marie Stopes staff assured her that her desire would be met. At the same time, Jane claimed the medical consultant allegedly advised her on medical abortion as opposed to a surgical one. According to her, the consultant termed the medical abortion as safe and without complications.
"The plaintiff opted for medical abortion, verily believing that the consultant's word as a medical practitioner whose opinion is relevant and should be relied upon by his patients and specifically the plaintiff herein," her court papers read in part.
She narrated that on July 5, nurses placed five doses of two pills every three hours to induce her.
Nevertheless, Jane claimed that they did not work. Two days later, they allegedly inserted the same pills through her birth canal, after which she got cramps after the second dose.
Jane further claimed that on July 8, the pain became unbearable.
According to her, the hospital staff dismissed her as making up the pain. She said that they even sent her fiance out after accusing her of exaggerating the pain in his presence.
"Sending away of the plaintiff's fiance was a decoy to exert pressure on the plaintiff to yield to a surgical abortion to which the hospital's own medical consultant had advised against," court papers continue to read.
She stated that doctors eventually told her that they were too tired to wait as they wanted to go home.
"In that desperate state, the plaintiff was coerced to sign documents whose contents were not explained to her, neither did she have an opportunity to read and thereafter a surgical abortion was forcibly performed on her," the court papers read.
She accused the hospital of doing the procedure without anesthesia.
Jane said the surgical process took her through untold pain and suffering. She lamented that she could feel the doctor's hands and metal instruments inside her.
"The plaintiff felt so violated, helpless and was taken through a horrendous and traumatic experience which left her empty as she was deprived of her dignity."
Jane also claimed that the procedures were done in the presence of male staff despite the promise that she would only be seen by females. She said the hospital violated her express instructions and wishes.
In her journal, she said she later learned that Marie Stopes had female professionals who would provide for safe and legal abortion. They then went to the hospital. "We met a male doctor, and I immediately said I wanted female providers. He assured me he was only consulting and that female staff would perform the procedure, which eased my mind," she said.
According to her, the doctor had explained to her that the risk of surgical abortion included infections or uterine damage. She said that at the time she was required to sign consent, her fiance was not around.
According to her, she was told that the fiance had left and had said he would not pay for a procedure to numb the pain.
"The doctor pressed me to decide alone, saying the surgical option would stop the pain instantly and let everyone go home. I asked to call my fiance first but she told me no, there was no need to call him, and urged me to just go through with it," she wrote.
In her journal, which is also before the court, she claimed there were three female doctors and a male and which made her feel exposed and helpless.
"Even now, thinking about it, I can still feel those hands and instruments, and it makes me cry. When it was over, I was taken back to my room. I lay face down, feeling empty, weak, and broken. I couldn't speak or move. I felt like I'd been touched in ways I didn't consent to, and the violation lingered. I was alone, still thinking my fiance had abandoned me, my mind spiralling with pain and betrayal," she said.
Jane added that she had to go through therapy as she felt that the hospital had violated her. She said she still carried the weight despite the help from her fiance and therapist.
In this case, Jane argued that she had to endure pain and suffering. At the same time, she stated that she was subjected to humiliation and lost her dignity.
She stated that the procedure led her to also incur post-medical procedure care and counselling.
"The plaintiff suffered severe psychological distress, sunk into depression and was diagnosed with Acute Stress Disorder and Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood," court papers also read. According to her, the experience was equivalent to attempted murder. Jane said her right to be informed before a consent had been violated. At the same time, she argued that her right not to be subjected to unnecessary trauma and pain had also been breached. The woman also accused the hospital of breaching her right to privacy, dignity and freedom from inhuman treatment.
In addition, she accused it of failing to adhere to medical ethics and professional duty.
She said that after sending a demand letter to the hospital, it denied the claims. Jane told the court that she had also complained to the Kenya Medical and Practitioners and Dentists Council (KMPDC).
Jane is asking for compensation for the alleged pain and suffering. She is also seeking future medical expenses, special damages, and compensation for the violation of her rights. She is also seeking aggravated damages for the alleged conduct of the hospital's personnel, interest and cost of filing the case.
Jane's demand letter to the hospital mirrors her allegations before the court and KMPDC.
KMPDC, in its notice to Marie Stopes indicated that the complaint said the agreement was that the procedure would have cost Sh31,957 only. It added that Jane's issue was that subsequent procedures, including the surgical intervention was allegedly done by an unidentified male medical doctor and which was allegedly against her wish, that the examination of her private parts was done in turns by different medics, and there were additional discharge charges.
KMPDC sought for a comprehensive response to all the allegations raised. At the same time, it sought for statements from the medical personnel who managed her and a certified copy of her file.
It also sought to have any additional documents which would help it make an informed decision.
In her complaint, she alleged that the receptionist billed an additional Sh10,000 for accommodation and Sh1,000 for diclofenac. She stated she paid for the medicine, but protested about the accommodation fee. She said the amount was dropped.
Her fiance, in his statement before KMPDC, told an almost similar story. He said that when he came back after freshening up, he found her staring at the ceiling and told him that a male doctor had performed the procedure.
"She revealed that a male doctor (unknown to us) performed a surgical abortion, claiming I couldn't afford anesthesia, which was false as I was prepared to pay the Sh70,000. She said nurses coerced her to sign a consent form during intense pain without explanation, stating they were tired of the medication process. The hospital withheld the consent form, violating Article 35," he claimed.
In her demand letter, she insisted that the hospital admit liability and compensate her for the special damage she had cited, for pain and for future medical expenses. She demanded a Sh25 million as compensation.
"We have further firm instructions to mount strenuous legal recovery proceedings against yourselves without any further reference to you at your own peril as to additional costs and reputational decay if the above demands are not met within seven days from the date hereof. Treat this demand cum notice of intention to sue with the utmost urgency it deserves for the relevant pleadings and documentary evidence are ready for further action," her demand letter reads in part.
In its response to the demand, the hospital admitted that she was their patient. However, it denied conducting a medical procedure without her consent. It asserted that it gave her treatment within the acceptable medical standard of care required.
"We further wish to advise you that in providing patient care, the best interest of the patient taking into account the kind of care required, is what informs client of our service and not the gender of the personnel attending to her," replied Marie Stopes.
"The hospital asserted that it had done nothing wrong adding that it would not be paying anything as demanded. It stated that it was ready to defend itself against the claims and would demonstrate that it had offered the best care to her.
"In view of the above our client categorically denies any liability arising from the treatment and care your client received at the facility. Please do note that we have instructions to strenuously defend any misplaced action that you may seek to pursue in this matter and demonstrate that your client received the best medical care and attention necessary to attend to her condition at the time," it continued.
