The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling that a medical center was fined AED 30,000 for falsifying a patient's consent form for physical therapy sessions at the center, using the photo of his health card without his knowledge and submitting it to a health insurance company, and collecting the value of these hearings from the company unlawfully.
The details of the case are due to the receipt of a letter from the health insurance company affiliated to it, stating that it approved the physical therapy sessions at a health center in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, while the victim did not request any treatment sessions or even communicate with the accused center, and refer to the insurance company discovered fraud His signature on the treatment forms and the use of his health card image in fake treatment requests.
The Public Prosecution has assigned the accused medical center, charges of participating with another unknown by agreement and assist in committing fraud in an unofficial editor "Physical Therapy Approval Form, Medical Disclosure Form, Medical Approval Form, and Patient's Medical Information Record" To the center, by placing a false signature and distorting the truth with the intention of using it as a correct editor, and the charge of using a false editor, and using it in front of the health insurance company, to obtain the consent of the victim's treatment with the knowledge of the center accused of falsifying the document, in addition to the charge of unauthorized use Raffi is true as the victim's image "health insurance card" and sent to the company of the editors of forged replace the first charge and the second to the health insurance company.
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance had ruled in the presence of the conviction of the Center accused of the crimes assigned to him and punishable by a fine of 30 thousand dirhams with the confiscation of forged documents and obliged him with criminal charges. The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal ruled that the opposition should be accepted in some form, and in the matter rejected and supported the opposing judgment in all its requirements, while obliging the accused defendant to pay the due judicial fees. This court did not receive acceptance by the convicted person and he appealed against it by cassation and presented a newspaper with the reasons for the appeal. The cassation prosecutor also submitted a memorandum of opinion, which ended in cassation of the contested judgment.
The Center appealed to the appellant, the judgment contested by mistake in the application of the law and inadequate in the causation and corruption in the inference and violation of the fixed in the papers and breach of the right of defense, pointing out that it is not enough to convict him to say the victim alone, as the papers lacked evidence, in addition to the invalidity of the decision to refer to his absence In addition to the fact that the verdict did not indicate the incident and its circumstances, the elements of the crime and the criminal intent did not appear, he demanded the amendment of the registration and description, and argued that it had nothing to do with the incident because the physiotherapy department is managed by a hospital management company under a contract. Manage and run.
The Court of Cassation in its ruling pointed out that the fixed of the verdict of the contested judgment that the complainant "health insurance company" was informed about the subject of fraud in documents signed by the ratios issued by a person contrary to the truth, and made clear during the inference that the victim called them to tell them that he received a letter He said that he did not visit the center and did not request any of their services.
The judgment stated that by presenting the medical file and the documents it contains to the victim, he denied that the signatures contained therein were issued by him. He also denied that the date of birth indicated therein is the correct date of birth, pointing out that the report of the health insurance company showed that the accused center submitted a request to it. Prior approval of the number of twelve sessions of physical therapy for the insured "victim" and after reviewing the application submitted the company approved six of the twelve sessions claimed, and the approval was sent to the center, and at a later date the center asked the company to ensure the value of treatment sessions and Pay the value according to the conditions Ge Medical Advance.
The court pointed out that the criminal evidence report proved that the ten signatures attributed to the victim and fixed in the medical file issued by the accused center are different from his fixed signatures with matching papers, and that the documents presented in the file do not include what indicates the relationship of the accused center with a hospital management companies who claimed that the department The court concluded on the basis of this evidence the conviction of the appellant, including the assignment, and the court ruled to reject the appeal and oblige the appellant to pay the due fee and confiscate the amount of insurance.