Mother died of pulmonary embolism after cesarean section
Police, prosecutors and courts all rejected medical negligence claims
Father-in-law staged one-person protest, received suspended fine
![This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not directly related to the article. [Getty Images Bank]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/11/05/news-p.v1.20261104.456df6500c694dc1bc8365f1b3c64ba9_P1.jpg)
"A mother who died after a cesarean section. Gone to heaven without ever holding her baby once. [Name of] OB-GYN clinic, offer a sincere apology."
— Placard held by A, a father-in-law who staged a one-person protest outside an obstetrics clinic in May 2024
In May 2024, a one-person protest took place outside an obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Gyeonggi Province. The father-in-law of a patient who had given birth at the clinic stood outside, claiming the hospital had killed his daughter-in-law following a cesarean section.
The claim was rejected at every level — by police, prosecutors and courts through three rounds of civil litigation. The attending medical staff were cleared of negligent homicide charges. A civil lawsuit against the hospital also ended in defeat for the bereaved family, with their damages claim dismissed at every instance.
The deceased mother's father-in-law ultimately took his protest to the street and was indicted on criminal defamation charges. How did the court rule?
Death from pulmonary embolism complication
The story begins in March 2019. A's daughter-in-law, then 39 weeks pregnant, was admitted to the clinic with labor pains. After more than six hours without fetal descent and with an unstable fetal heartbeat, the clinic performed a cesarean section. The baby was born healthy.
The mother was another matter. The day after surgery, she collapsed. Despite ultrasound examinations showing no uterine bleeding, her vital signs — including oxygen saturation and pulse — deteriorated sharply. The clinic called emergency services and began CPR simultaneously. The mother was transferred to a higher-level medical facility within 24 minutes but died.
The cause of death was determined to be pulmonary embolism resulting from the cesarean section — an emergency condition in which blood clots formed after surgery block the pulmonary vessels.
Criminal complaint filed but cleared — civil suit followed
The bereaved family sought to hold the medical staff accountable and filed a criminal complaint against them.
Investigators cleared the medical staff of negligent homicide charges. The Pyeongtaek branch of the Suwon District Prosecutors Office declined to indict in April 2020, finding that the mother had shown no unusual symptoms before losing consciousness after surgery, that post-operative monitoring appeared appropriate, and that the transfer to a higher-level hospital could not be considered delayed.
The family also filed a civil lawsuit.
In the civil proceedings, the family argued that the risk of pulmonary embolism increases after a cesarean section and that the hospital had neither informed the deceased of preventive measures nor taken any steps to address the risk. They sought 200 million won ($149,000) in damages.
Medical negligence rejected through all three civil court instances
![A court building. [The Herald Business DB]](https://wimg.heraldcorp.com/news/cms/2026/11/05/news-p.v1.20261104.7b08eb88758c4080a4e2b34ef06ce09d_P1.jpg)
The court of first instance ruled against the family in November 2021.
The court noted that pulmonary embolism following cesarean section occurs at a rate of just 0.023 percent, adding that it "is a condition difficult to diagnose or predict in advance, and may present with no symptoms or unclear symptoms."
The court further held that in the case of an emergency cesarean section, even if side effects or complications were anticipated, the absence of any alternative delivery method meant the matter did not fall within the scope of the patient's right to self-determination. The hospital therefore could not be said to have had a duty to provide additional explanation.
The court also found it reasonable to conclude that the hospital had fulfilled its duty of explanation, given that medical staff had informed the family of the necessity of surgery and anesthesia, the nature of the procedure and anticipated complications, and had obtained a signed surgical consent form.
The family appealed, but the second instance court reached the same conclusion, ruling against the family in February 2023.
The appellate court found that medical staff had administered CPR and cardiac massage after the mother showed abnormal symptoms, and that there was insufficient basis to conclude the hospital had breached its duty of care during the transfer to a higher-level facility.
The Supreme Court upheld that ruling in June 2023.
Settlement reached, then protest — suspended fine confirmed
After failing to establish medical negligence through both criminal and civil proceedings, the family reached a settlement with the hospital.
The hospital offered 50 million won as a consolation payment and indicated that an additional 30 million won could be obtained through a government compensation committee for unavoidable maternal deaths. Both sides signed a written agreement, with the details to be discussed later.
The family and the hospital settled in January 2024, on the condition that family members would raise no further objections or claims against the hospital or the attending physician.
The family did not receive the 30 million won from the committee and demanded the hospital pay the amount directly. When the hospital refused, A staged a one-person protest outside the clinic, again alleging medical negligence and claiming the doctor had failed to respond to the emergency.
A was ultimately tried on criminal defamation charges, and the court of first instance imposed a fine of 2 million won.
The court said the primary purpose of the protest appeared to be obtaining the 30 million won payment, and that it was difficult to view the action as being in the public interest.
The criminal ninth division of Suwon District Court, presided over by Judge Kim Jun-hyeok, upheld the 2 million won fine on appeal but suspended its execution for one year.
The appellate court also found that A had staged the protest despite knowing that medical negligence had been rejected by police, prosecutors and the courts, and that the hospital's reputation had been damaged by the suggestion that a medical accident may have occurred.
The court nonetheless opted for a suspended sentence, citing the considerable mental anguish A had suffered following the death of a daughter-in-law after a cesarean section. It also noted that there were circumstances surrounding the offense that warranted some consideration, and that A had no prior criminal record.
The ruling was finalized without appeal. Neither the prosecutor nor A challenged the second instance decision.
Lee Dong-chan, a medical law attorney at The Friends Law Office who analyzed the ruling, said the compensation was likely not paid because the hospital's negligence had not been established in either the criminal or civil proceedings. "Even if the hospital stated in the written agreement that the family 'could receive 30 million won,' that portion would not carry legal force," Lee said.
notstrong@heraldcorp.com
