Ian Paterson was suspended after he performed hundreds of unnecessary partial mastectomies . Hundreds of victims of a breast surgeon who carried out botched operations may never receive compensation because of a loophole in his insurance policy. Ian Paterson was suspended after he performed hundreds of unnecessary partial mastectomies on at least 250 healthy women over a 15-year period. An independent review revealed the 57-year-old also carried out 'cleavage sparing' mastectomies on at least 450 other women, in which breast tissue was left. Paterson pioneered the operations on women, leaving part of their breast behind solely for cosmetic reasons - dramatically increasing the risk of their cancer returning. More than 700 patients were recalled by the hospitals where Paterson worked, as part of the review overseen by Sir Ian Kennedy. The surgeon worked at both NHS and private hospitals across the Midlands from 1994, until he was suspended in 2012. While Paterson's NHS patients are able to pursue compensation claims through the health service's channels, it is the surgeon's private patients that are facing being left with nowhere to turn. Those who went under the knife at Spire Hospitals in Little Aston and Solihull may miss out on the compensation their lawyers say they are entitled to. Surgeons who work in private hospitals have to take out their own insurance to cover themselves against medical negligence claims. However Paterson's insurance company, the Medical Defence Union (MDU), is disputing the compensation claims. It is doing so on the basis that some of the operations carried out may have been illegal and  are not included in Paterson's cover. Louise Hawkley, a medical negligence lawyer at Irwin Mitchell Solicitors, is representing patients treated by Paterson at the Spire Hospitals. She said: 'The insurance company will usually be liable for any claims made for clinical negligence and, if compensation is awarded, this will be due from the insurer under the terms of the policy. 'Mr Paterson took out insurance with the Medical Defence Union (MDU). 'However, the MDU has confirmed it is not instructed by Mr Paterson, not authorised to accept service of any proceedings and that Irwin Mitchell's clients "should have no expectation of any continuing MDU involvement in this matter". 'MDU cover is discretionary and may legitimately be withdrawn if a surgeon's practice falls outside of the insurance terms. One of the victims who is facing losing out on compensation is Jade Edgington, 24, who underwent unnecessary surgery to remove non-cancerous lumps from her breasts. Miss Edgington, from Shirley, in the West Midlands, was 16 when she discovered a large lump in her left breast. Thanks to her father's Bupa medical insurance, was seen almost immediately by Paterson in October 2005. After an ultrasound, Paterson told the then teenager she had a lump 'the size of a golf ball' in her breast and it needed to be removed. Just over a year later, in December 2006, Jade discovered another smaller lump in her right breast. Paterson removed it a month later, reassuring her that the lumps were nothing to worry about. She went back to him again in April 2007 after discovering another small lump, this time in her left breast, and again Paterson cut it out. Finally, in April 2009, she discovered a small lump in the scar left behind from the first operation in her left breast. Former patients of Ian Paterson's, Jade Edgington, 24, left, and Julie Robinson, right, face missing out on compensation despite having had unnecessary operations at the hands of the breast surgeon . Paterson told her it was a 'stitch granuloma' - harmless cells around the wound site - but he removed it anyway. Finally in November 2011, Miss Edgington was told the operations had been unnecessary. Shockingly, because the operations were carried out a private hospital, Miss Edgington is unlikely to receive any compensation, despite lawyers advising she could expect up to £50,000. She said: 'I thought he was lovely. He was charismatic and confident. He put me and my parents at ease. 'Apparently, he should have performed a fine needle laparoscopy on the lump to see if it was cancerous before deciding whether to remove it, but when a surgeon says you need an operation, you don't question it. 'Dad said: "Jade, if the surgeon says you've got to have it out, you've got to have it out". He feels terribly guilty now, but every parent would say the same. 'I feel furious that because of a loophole, hundreds of potential victims might not get any compensation. 'It adds insult to injury and he's basically been allowed to get away with ruining people's lives.' She added: 'No amount of money will make up for what I went through but it would help me rebuild my life and is recognition of what this man (Paterson) did to me and hundreds of others.' Victim Julie Robinson, 54, had an unnecessary lumpectomy at Little Aston Hospital in June 2005 and also faces missing out on compensation. The mother-of-two, from Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands, said: 'I feel betrayed. It was so shocking, that someone could do something to violate you when you are at your most vulnerable. 'It feels very unjust that we are not able to take things forward and he's getting away with it. He should be made to pay. 'It seems shocking that there isn't the same rules of cover for private patients as NHS patients. 'It shouldn't matter - if a doctor is negligent he should be held accountable.' 'This is a unique situation, where a private surgeon's practices fall outside of their insurance cover, and there is no safety net for patients.' Ms Hawkley said her clients believed they would receive 'greater care and treatment' by choosing to have their operations at a private hospital. 'Many clients started out in the NHS and paid privately to see Mr Paterson to expedite their treatment,' she said. 'Our clients are aggrieved that they actually paid to undergo negligent treatment and, now that the negligence is known, they may have no recourse against Mr Paterson, his insurer, or the hospital where they received that treatment.' A cleavage sparing mastectomy involved leaving behind some breast tissue to provide an improved cleavage for the patient. But it breached national guidelines, which state that leaving tissue after a mastectomy increases the chances of cancer recurring - especially if the remaining breast tissue does not receive radiotherapy. This is because a significant proportion of breast tissue is deliberately left by the surgeon in the inner aspect of the breast in order to give the patient breast cleavage - even in women not undergoing immediate reconstruction. The technique is different to the widely-used skin sparing mastectomy, where the surgeon leaves behind an envelope of skin to improve the appearance of breast reconstruction. She added: 'This is a deeply unfair set of circumstances whereby Mr Paterson's patients who received treatment in the NHS are rightly receiving the compensation which they are due, but the patients who opted to pay privately may be left out of pocket for the treatment itself and without any compensation for negligent injuries identical to those suffered by Mr Paterson's patients in the NHS. 'It is distressing both to Mr Paterson's private patients, and professionally as a medical negligence lawyer, that it is legitimate and accepted for insurance cover to be suspended and/or withdrawn on a discretionary basis, affording no obvious recourse to private patients.' Paterson worked at NHS and private hospitals across the Midlands from 1994 until he was suspended last year. He was employed by Heart of England in March 1998, having been suspended by another trust. Colleagues became concerned that he was not removing enough tissue during mastectomies and two investigations were carried out, in 2003 and 2004. Although a number of recommendations were made about his surgery, nothing was done to stop him. Fears raised by a surgeon in 2007 were not properly acted upon. Paterson was told to stop cleavage-sparing operations but continued until as late as 2011. Paterson was suspended by the trust in May 2011 but his pay was not stopped for 18 months. In July 2013, Paterson and his physiotherapist wife Louise, 53, sold their £1.25 million Grade II listed, eight-bedroom, four reception Georgian home in Edgbaston, Birmingham. West Midlands Police confirmed the 'long and complex' investigation into Mr Paterson was still ongoing, but that they had no current updates on the case. Spire, which runs private hospitals at Little Aston and Solihull, has already issued 'an unreserved apology' to Paterson's patients. The Medical Defence Union told MailOnline it cannot comment on the case.
Breast surgeon Ian Paterson was suspended after performing unnecessary partial mastectomies on at least 250 healthy women over 15-year period . Carried out 'cleavage sparing' mastectomies on at least 450 other women, leaving breast tissue and leaving them at risk of their cancer returning . Worked at both NHS and Spire private hospitals in the Midlands . Hundreds of his private patients may never receive compensation . His insurance policy may not be valid because the operations were 'illegal'