A CORONER has vowed to review the inquest into a man whose death was partly caused by the mistakes of two under-fire urologists.

Peter Read suffered a catastrophic stroke after urological consultants Ashutosh Jain and Muhammad Naseem failed to take him into theatre when he was showing signs of sepsis.

When fellow consultant Peter Duffy arrived two days later he instantly recognised the urgent need to operate and replace a calcified stent in his ureter.

Mr Duffy gathered a team together in the lunch break and rushed Mr Read into theatre but it was 'too little too late' and Mr Read passed away with his wife Glenys and their daughters Nicola and Karen by his side.

A coroner said the failings of Mr Jain and Mr Naseem in not changing a kidney stent contributed to Mr Read’s death at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary in January 2015. Both still work at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust.

Mr Read's daughters have also since discovered, following the publication of Mr Duffy's book Whistle in the Wind and an investigation by The Mail, that Mr Jain was involved in the care of Irene Erhart from Walney.

Similar delays also contributed to her death in 2011.

In 2011 a coroner ruled failings in the care of Mrs Erhart contributed to her death and ‘lessons were not learned’ Mrs Beamer said.

Hospital bosses have since apologised to both families and many other patients harmed by mistakes made by Mr Jain, Mr Naseem and Kavinder Madhra who resigned in 2018.

Other claims made by Mr Duffy in his book, along with new evidence, have led the Read family to start the process to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest.

The coroner has now agreed to review Mr Read's inquest following the conclusion of a regulator's review into UHMBT's urology department.

A spokesman for the Coroner Service said: “The coroner is aware that UHMBT have re-opened an investigation following a recent book publication.

“Once this is complete, the coroner will review the case to determine whether or not the original inquest conclusion was appropriate.”

Mrs Beamer said: “We’re really pleased the coroner will look at dad’s inquest again but we still believe a fresh inquest is needed.

“If it wasn’t for Peter’s book, and help from The Mail, we would never have uncovered all this new evidence.

“We have no doubt that things would have been very different had we been aware of all this at the time of dad’s inquest and we believe it’s in the interests of justice, and the public interest given how many other patients and families are affected, for a fresh inquest to be held.

“While we see this as a victory of sorts, in that we are being listened to and taken seriously, there’s still a lot more work to be done to make sure that nobody else suffers like dad and Mrs Erhart did. 

“Our next step is to apply to the Attorney General for permission to take our fight for a fresh inquest to the High Court.”