A doctor accused of poor professional performance was unable to tell a patient who underwent a hysterectomy if her ovaries had been removed.

The woman, referred to as Patient C, was giving evidence on the fourth day of the Medical Council fitness to practice inquiry into allegations by four patients against Dr Peter Van Geene.

It is alleged the four patients suffered significant and serious complications after undergoing hysterectomies.

Patient C was suffering incontinence when she was referred to Dr Van Geene who told her he would carry out a hysterectomy and a pelvic floor repair operation in October 2011. She said she was reassured by Dr Van Geene about the operation, but he did not discuss the risks with her.

In relation to Patient C, it is alleged Dr Van Geene carried out a vaginal hysterectomy and pelvic floor repair in such a manner to cause a significant post-operative bleed, resulting in a laparotomy. A laparotomy is carried out to examine internal organs.

Theprocedure required six units of blood to be transfused and four units of plasma.

It is also alleged Dr Van Geene carried out a laparotomy to investigate the source of the bleeding when he ought to have known the source of the bleeding was from a certain area. It is claimed this would have avoided the need for the operation.

Following the hysterectomy, Patient C said she felt unwell and Dr Van Geene told her she had a post-operative bleed.

He told her he would have to make an incision but could not go in the same route because she had a vaginal hysterectomy.

Patient C recalled a post-operative meeting with Dr Van Geene where she asked him if he removed her ovaries. He said he did not know because he did not have his medical notes with him, she said.

Patient C told the inquiry she still did not know if her ovaries had been removed or not.

Eugene Gleeson, barrister for Dr Van Geene, said: “I’m sorry you weren’t told this in your post operative meeting. Your ovaries were never removed.”

The inquiry also heard evidence from a consultant anesthetist about an emergency out of hours call he received regarding Patient C, who needed to go back to the operating theatre following a hysterectomy.

Dr John Cudmore said he later reported the case to the theatre manager, because it was the second significant post-operative bleed in a patient of Mr Van Geene’s within a short space of time.

“It was the second case of serious haemorrhaging following an elective procedure with Mr Van Geene,” he said.

Dr Cudmore said he was called in by a nurse, not by Dr Van Geene, to see Patient C.

He said when he called in to see Patient C at 9.50pm on October 11th, 2011, she had low blood pressure and was clinically shut down following bleeding after the hysterectomy operation.

Mr Cudmore said Dr Van Geene did not discuss his plan for the laparotomy operation or how long the procedure would take to complete which he said was unusual.

The inquiry continues.