NHS in England Closed After Initial Enquiries Search on PHSO website

A practice in the Tower Hamlets area

P-001757 · Statement · Decision date: 31 January 2023
Complaint (AI summary)
The GP failed to treat Ms G's hearing loss as a medical emergency and misdiagnosed it, causing her to miss a crucial treatment window and suffer permanent hearing loss.
Outcome (AI summary)
The ombudsman closed the complaint, advising Ms G could pursue a legal route for her concerns regarding her treatment and hearing loss.

Full decision details

The Complaint

4. Ms G complains about the care and treatment the Practice gave her between July and November 2021. She complains her general practitioner (GP) at the Practice failed to treat her hearing loss symptoms as a medical emergency. She says this meant the window of opportunity for steroid (anti-inflammatory) treatment to be successful was missed.

5. She further complains the GP misdiagnosed the hearing loss as a conductive issue (hearing loss caused by an obstruction or blockage in the ear) and not a sensorineural one (permanent hearing loss resulting from damage to the inner ear or the auditory nerve). A specialist ear, nose and throat doctor later diagnosed a sensorineural issue.

6. Ms G explains she has lost the hearing in her right ear and has daily tinnitus (hearing sounds that do not come from an outside source). She says this affects her day-to-day life and she is now having counselling because of this. Ms G wants financial compensation and service improvements.

Findings

8. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint if a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Ms G to understand the outcomes she wants. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to. During our phone conversation on 20 January 2023, Ms G said that her GP at the Practice failed to treat her hearing loss symptoms as a medical emergency. She says this meant the window of opportunity for steroid treatment to be successful was missed.

9. We have discussed the outcomes Ms G wants to achieve and she says she wants financial compensation and service improvements. After some thought, Ms G says she wants the highest level of financial compensation available as she has permanently lost her hearing in her right ear. So, she is looking for more than £100,000. Ms G also says she feels the Practice was negligent in its care.

10. We consider Ms G could make a legal claim of clinical negligence (when healthcare professionals cause physical or mental harm because of the poor standard of care they gave) for her complaint. Claims of clinical negligence and for large compensation payments are usually better pursued through the legal system. We think it is important for Ms G to explore this option by seeking legal advice within the three-year time limit.

11. We have considered Ms G also wants service improvements. Legal action may not directly achieve this outcome but we are aware it can sometimes happen as a by-product of legal action.

12. During our phone conversation on 20 January 2023, Ms G explained she has contacted a no win no fee solicitor and discussed the facts of the complaint but has not yet taken this further. Based on what Ms G tells us, we understand there are no barriers to her looking further into legal action. Having taken everything into account, we think it is reasonable for Ms G to pursue the legal action available to her.

13. If Ms G does not achieve all the outcomes she wants through legal action or does not pursue legal action, she can bring her complaint back to us and we could consider it as a new complaint. At that point, we would need to carefully consider the outcome of any legal enquiries she has made and the outcomes she wants.

14. We would also need to consider the time which has passed as our time limits would still apply. So, it is important for Ms G to get legal advice without delay.

15. We recognise Ms G’s experience has caused her great distress. We hope this statement clearly explains our decision not to consider her complaint further at this time. We have decided it would be better for Ms G to get more legal advice first to see if she can achieve the outcomes she wants.

Our Decision

1. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has carefully considered Ms G’s complaint about a practice in the Tower Hamlets area (the Practice). Ms G tells us she has suffered a loss of hearing which affects her daily. We are sorry Ms G has experienced such a significant change to her life.

2. Based on what Ms G has told us, we consider she could have a legal route available to her to pursue her complaint. We consider it is reasonable for her to look into that legal route. We have decided to take no further action at this time for this reason.

3. We are sorry for any additional distress this may cause. We hope our explanations below show how we have considered this and why this is the better course of action for her to take to get the outcomes she wants.

Other Decisions About A practice in the Tower Hamlets area

P-005008 · 9 Mar 2026
Mr P complains between 2021 and 2024 a Practice in the London Borough (the Practice) mismanaged his medication. He also …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-003909 · 26 Jul 2023
Ms E complains about her experience when going to the Practice for her second COVID-19 vaccination.
Closed After Initial Enquiries
P-001993 · 31 May 2023
Miss I complains about the six-week post-natal check-up she had at the Practice in March 2021. She complains a GP …
Closed After Initial Enquiries
View all decisions for this organisation →