Al Ain Court of Appeal decided to amend a ruling of the Court of First Instance, which obligated a hospital and two doctors to pay a man and his wife 90,000 dirhams in compensation for moral damages resulting from the death of their child, as a result of negligence in receiving treatment. dirhams.
The details of the case go back to the fact that a husband and wife filed a lawsuit, in which they demanded to oblige three hospitals and four doctors to pay them 15 million dirhams in compensation for all material, moral, moral and inherited damages as a result of the death of their child, and oblige them to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney fees, noting that the defendants from The first until the seventh all caused the death of their son, and this was the result of their neglect and carelessness, their lack of caution, and their failure to take the correct medical standards in treating the deceased, and transporting him by ambulance, despite his emergency condition that requires hypnosis and the start of immediate treatment.
The Court of First Instance ruled to oblige the first defendants (a hospital), the fifth (a doctor) and the seventh (a doctor) to jointly pay the plaintiffs compensation for all moral damages, in a total amount of 90,000 dirhams, and based its ruling on the authority of the penal judgment before the civil judiciary, which convicted the plaintiff. They (the first, the fifth and the seventh) are charged with causing the victim’s death by mistake, and that was the result of their negligence, and their breach of what the principles of the profession imposed on them, and then the error was proven against them.
While the court, in the reasons for its ruling, refused to compensate them for the material damages, for not being proven, it also decided to reject the case against the rest of the litigants, because no fault was proven on their part.
This judiciary was not accepted by the hospital (the original appellant), so he appealed it, and blamed the appealed ruling for the violation of the right of defense, noting that the first original appellant (the father of the child) was the cause of the death of his son, because the latter was a resident of the hospital, and if desired When he was transferred to another hospital, his father refused to take the child in the ambulance, on the pretext that he was afraid of ambulances, and stated that he would take him in his own car, but he took him home, and delayed treatment, which caused the child to suffer a setback that led to his death, and then The fault of the injured person may have taken the fault attributed to the appellant hospital, in addition to the court’s exaggeration in estimating the compensation, especially since the blood money was paid in favor of the original appellee.
The hospital appealing against the ruling also mourned that the Medical Responsibility Committee did not confirm that the medical error mentioned was the cause of the death of the child, while the cross-appellants blamed the wrongly appealed judgment in applying the law, when it decided a meager compensation not commensurate with the extent of the damage suffered by the cross-appellants after the death of their son as a result of the death of their son. The cross-Appellant’s neglect, and they petitioned to amend the appealed judgment, and the judiciary again obligating the first to seventh respondent to pay the cross-appellants an amount of 15 million dirhams in compensation for all the material, moral, moral and inherited damages they sustained as a result of the death of their child.
For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified in the merits of its ruling that the penal judgments issued in the case were based on the report of the Higher Committee for Medical Liability, and if it was proven that this ruling had become final, it has become a conclusive legal authority in the chapter on the occurrence of the crime and its description and attribution to the original appellant. This does not affect what the hospital originally appealed for regarding the contribution of the father of the deceased child to the harm caused to his son, as it was clear from the report of the Medical Liability Committee that the medical care provided by the hospital was not in accordance with medical standards.
On the subject of the cross-appeal, the court indicated that it had held that the loss of the cross-appellants of their young child due to the appellant’s mistake, resulted in grief and sorrow that the appealed judgment did not adequately evoke in its assessment of compensation for moral damage, and did not pay him his right in full, what is required With it, the judgment appealed against in this section is amended, and the cross-appellants are entitled to compensation for moral damage.
The court ruled to accept the original and cross-appeal in form, and on the subject of the original appeal by rejecting it, keeping its fees and expenses borne by the filer, and on the subject of the cross-appeal by amending the appealed judgment in what it ruled in the first item, and obligating the cross-appellees (a hospital and two doctors), to perform in solidarity The cross-appellants are entitled to compensation for moral damages in the amount of 200,000 dirhams, as well as fees and expenses.
The judgment of the first degree awarded 90,000 dirhams in compensation for moral damages.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news