The Abu Dhabi Appeal upheld a first-degree ruling against the medical facility and the surgeon

100 thousand dirhams in compensation for a patient for a mistake with an "open heart" surgery

The “appeal” clarified in its ruling that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of a technical error in conducting the process.

Archives

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of the Court of First Instance, requiring a medical facility and a doctor, to compensate a patient with 100,000 dirhams, as a result of a technical error in conducting an open-heart operation, and the material and moral damages that resulted from him undergoing another surgery, and his feeling of anxiety and psychological distress, in addition to To the physical pain he endured.

The details of the case are due to the fact that a patient (the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against a medical facility (the first defendant), and a doctor (the second defendant), seeking a ruling to compel the defendants to jointly and solidarity with compensation for the material and moral damages caused to him, the lost earnings, and what He suffered from a loss as a result of the operation, on the basis that the second defendant of the first defendant had undergone an open-heart operation, and his condition did not improve and his temperature rose without knowing the reason, and after that it was confirmed for the second defendant that there was blood in the plaintiff’s lung, and he extracted about a liter And half a liter of blood, and his condition did not improve, and he was referred to a consultant doctor, who discovered that there was a mistake and negligence in conducting the operation, and informed him of the need for another operation that he performed outside the country.

The case papers indicated that the second defendant was punishable by a disciplinary punishment, and was convicted under the misdemeanor judgment, and this judgment became final by virtue of the appeal, and it was decided by the Court of Cassation.

The case papers pointed out that the plaintiff (the patient) was financially damaged by borrowing, medical expenses, medicines and transportation, and morally due to the sadness, despair, psychological distress, and psychological and physical pain that he suffered.

The first instance court ruled to oblige the first and second defendants to pay the plaintiff jointly a compensation of 100 thousand dirhams for the material and moral damage he suffered, by obligating the first and second defendants to pay the fees and expenses of the case.

The verdict was not accepted by the two defendants, so they submitted their appeal, lamenting the appealed judgment for the error in the application of the law and its interpretation and the failure to cause in his judgment to compensate the appellant, despite the absence of the element of harm in the present case, which was not evidenced, and that this judgment wasted the appellants ’defense for not presenting the appellant. He had documents indicating that he had performed a second operation, and they requested the cancellation of the appealed judgment and the dismissal of the case due to the lack of validity and unprovenness.

While the plaintiff submitted documents indicating the damage in his lawsuit, the Supreme Committee also proved that the appellant had undergone another surgery, in addition to that he attached a copy of the report of this operation duly certified, requesting the appeal to be rejected and the appealed verdict supported.

For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified in its ruling that the documents and the attached medical report stated that the plaintiff, as a result of the technical error in conducting the open heart surgery, suffered material damage, represented by undergoing another surgery, and there is no doubt that he incurred the costs of the medical examinations and the surgical operation that was performed He and the costs of the medicines that were given to him, except that he did not provide proof of the expenses he incurred in connection with that process, and there is no doubt that the plaintiff suffered moral damages, represented in his feeling of sadness, distress, anxiety and psychological distress due to undergoing another process, in addition to the physical pain he suffered And the court ruled accepting the appeal formally, and in the matter rejected it, upheld the appealed judgment, and obligated the appellants to pay the expenses.

The patient underwent a second surgery outside the country, due to the error in the first operation.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news