Legal Perspective Of Medical Procedures Delay In UAE Dubai Court of Cassation has established a judicial principle, in a recent ruling, that the Court finds from the case documents and medical report Legal Perspective Of Medical Procedures Delay In UAE Dubai Court of Cassation has established a judicial principle, in a recent ruling, that the Court finds from the case documents and medical report Legal Perspective Of Medical Procedures Delay In UAE Dubai Court of Cassation has established a judicial principle, in a recent ruling, that the Court finds from the case documents and medical report

The Legal Perspective Of Medical Procedures Delay In UAE

Dubai Court of Cassation has established a judicial principle, in a recent ruling, that the Court finds from the case documents and medical report attached to the current case and issued by the Supreme Committee for Medical Liability as delegated in the urgent case number —– Civil Dubai, annexed and filed by the first Claimant (the first Appellee) against the second Defendant (the hospital) – the first Appellant- and its mistake and the first Defendant (the second Appellant)’s mistake is proven as per the conclusion of its report that (1) the first Defendant- the second Appellant- made a mistake as delayed the surgical intervention to perform the caesarean section ,

which led to the condition of the child, (2) The pediatricians in the hospital did not commit any medical error that might lead to the child’s injury with cerebral palsy, (3) The —–Hospital bears the responsibility for not providing body cooling devices for cases of hypoxia in children, which would have led to reduction in the damage of the child’s brain, as the hospital receives pregnant women to give birth, (4) The surgical intervention in the cesarean section resulted in the birth of the child with cerebral palsy, and as a result she has a complete loss of the cerebral and mental capacities because of the cerebral palsy and cerebral atrophy,

this is considered a permanent disability estimated at 100% of the original nature, loss of the ability to eat, swallow and drink, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature, complete loss of the ability to speak, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature, and a complete loss of the ability to see, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature, spastic paralysis in the upper extremities,

which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature, spastic paralysis in the lower limbs, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature, a complete loss of the ability to control the excretion process, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature, a complete loss of control over the urination process, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature and a complete loss of the future sexual ability, which is a permanent disability estimated at 100% of its original nature.

The sick child in her current condition is in constant need of medical assistance, follow-up, nursing and rehabilitative care around the clock throughout her life, taking into account the psychological state of the parents. The Court considers this report based on its reasons and it considers the same as complementary reasons for its ruling.

Therefore, the medical error necessitating the civil liability against the two Defendants is available and they shall be obliged to pay the compensation against the damages affected the claimants, and as the causal relationship between the error and harm is available. The Court shall hereinafter estimate the compensation amount…)).

The challenged ruling added that ((This Court agrees with the Court of First Instance regarding its conclusion that the medical error is confirmed against the second Appellant, subordinate to the first Appellant, and they are both responsible for the compensation,
based on the decision of the Supreme Committee for Medical Liability in its report submitted in the urgent case number ——– Civil Dubai, that the second appellant did not explain the seriousness of the fetus’s condition,

and that it was late in taking the decision of the operation and performing the same in the proper time, consequently it made a mistake in delaying the surgical intervention to perform the caesarean section , and this led to the condition of the child, and that the —–Hospital bears the responsibility for not providing body cooling devices for cases of hypoxia in children,

which would have led to reduction in the damage of the child’s brain, as the hospital receives pregnant women to give birth. Therefore, the court is satisfied with this report and embraces its reasons and considers it an integral part of its reasons for the soundness of the foundations and the research on which it is based,

and the Court relies on the same regarding the confirmation or mistake against the two Appellants, and therefore the medical liability which necessitates the compensation exists on their side.
This is not affected by the two Appellants’ claim that the harm affected the child was due to the fault of the mother – the second Appellee- as she delayed in the follow up and her initial refusal to perform the caesarean section. It is established from the report of the Supreme Committee for Medical Responsibility, which reviewed the medical file of both the mother and the child and all the records of the first Appellant hospital in this regard that this claim was not proven to this committee,

but rather the report stated that the second Appellee – the mother – had agreed to perform the caesarean section when the second Appellant – the doctor – told her that the operation was necessary due to disturbances in the fetal heartbeat. Consequently, what the two Appellants raise in this regard is nothing more than words lacking a proof,

and the Court does not deem necessary to request the return of the documents to the previously assigned committee after it found in the submitted report and the case documents what is sufficient to form its belief to make a decision in the case. Therefore,

the ruling of the appealed judgment regarding the two Appellants’ liability for compensation was based on legally correct and valid reasons, with fixed origin in documents sufficient for the same. The Court upholds the ruling in this regard.

Mohamed Mahmoud Al Marzooqi law firm

Attorney / Mohamed Al Marzooqi
Mohamed Al Marzooqi advocates & Consultancy
Lawyer in Abu Dhabi, Dubai – UAE