Dubai Court Orders Compensation for Medical Malpractice in Unjustified Nose Surgery
A patient awarded 200,000 AED after a medical committee confirmed a severe malpractice during a nasal procedure.
A civil court in Dubai has ruled that a doctor and a hospital must pay a total compensation of 200,000 AED to a patient who underwent an unnecessary nasal surgery that resulted in permanent disfigurement.
The decision followed the findings of a medical responsibility committee which determined that the surgeon performed an unjustified operation, leading to enduring deformities in the patient's nose.
The plaintiff, an Arab national, initially sought a total of 600,000 AED in damages for both physical and moral harm due to what the suit described as surgical errors, along with a legal interest of 12% from the date of the judgment until full payment.
The case presented evidence that the medical committee investigated the patient's complaint and concluded in a final report, which cannot be contestable by any party, that the doctor had committed serious malpractice within the hospital.
The report noted that the doctor deviated from recognized medical protocols and guidelines, undermining the standard of care expected in the profession and ignoring early symptoms presented by the patient that escalated into more severe complications.
The court's ruling emphasized the application of Article 282 of the Civil Transactions Law, which stipulates that any harm caused to another requires the responsible party—regardless of their intent—to compensate for the damages incurred.
Under current legal provisions, claims for compensation arising from medical liability must first be presented to and reviewed by specialized medical committees.
Only after this review and the issuance of a conclusive report can a lawsuit be filed in court.
If a party contests the findings, they may escalate the matter to a committee appointed by the Cabinet for a final decision, which is also non-contestable.
The court clarified that a physician's responsibility does not solely hinge on ensuring a patient's recovery; rather, it is sufficient for the physician to demonstrate sincere care.
However, deviations from this duty constitute liability for any resulting harm to the patient that interferes with their treatment options, provided that a causal link can be established.
The court stated that the assessment of damages and the circumstances involved in determining the compensation amount are responsibilities assigned to the trial court, free from specific legal metrics guiding their decision as long as the elements of damage and the justification for compensation are evident.
According to the findings from the medical committee, the serious error committed by the defendant doctor resulted in both physical harm, impacting the integrity of the plaintiff's body, and moral damage, contributing to psychological distress due to the resulting injuries.
Additionally, the court ascribed responsibility to the hospital based on its failure to properly vet the doctor or supervise their actions, establishing sufficient grounds for joint liability between the medical professionals involved.
The decision followed the findings of a medical responsibility committee which determined that the surgeon performed an unjustified operation, leading to enduring deformities in the patient's nose.
The plaintiff, an Arab national, initially sought a total of 600,000 AED in damages for both physical and moral harm due to what the suit described as surgical errors, along with a legal interest of 12% from the date of the judgment until full payment.
The case presented evidence that the medical committee investigated the patient's complaint and concluded in a final report, which cannot be contestable by any party, that the doctor had committed serious malpractice within the hospital.
The report noted that the doctor deviated from recognized medical protocols and guidelines, undermining the standard of care expected in the profession and ignoring early symptoms presented by the patient that escalated into more severe complications.
The court's ruling emphasized the application of Article 282 of the Civil Transactions Law, which stipulates that any harm caused to another requires the responsible party—regardless of their intent—to compensate for the damages incurred.
Under current legal provisions, claims for compensation arising from medical liability must first be presented to and reviewed by specialized medical committees.
Only after this review and the issuance of a conclusive report can a lawsuit be filed in court.
If a party contests the findings, they may escalate the matter to a committee appointed by the Cabinet for a final decision, which is also non-contestable.
The court clarified that a physician's responsibility does not solely hinge on ensuring a patient's recovery; rather, it is sufficient for the physician to demonstrate sincere care.
However, deviations from this duty constitute liability for any resulting harm to the patient that interferes with their treatment options, provided that a causal link can be established.
The court stated that the assessment of damages and the circumstances involved in determining the compensation amount are responsibilities assigned to the trial court, free from specific legal metrics guiding their decision as long as the elements of damage and the justification for compensation are evident.
According to the findings from the medical committee, the serious error committed by the defendant doctor resulted in both physical harm, impacting the integrity of the plaintiff's body, and moral damage, contributing to psychological distress due to the resulting injuries.
Additionally, the court ascribed responsibility to the hospital based on its failure to properly vet the doctor or supervise their actions, establishing sufficient grounds for joint liability between the medical professionals involved.
Translation:
Translated by AI
