Medical Liability Limitation in the Premature Births Abu Dhabi Court has affirmed in a recent ruling that it is necessary for the Subject Court to know the legal reason for the case subject or the judgment sentenced Medical Liability Limitation in the Premature Births Abu Dhabi Court has affirmed in a recent ruling that it is necessary for the Subject Court to know the legal reason for the case subject or the judgment sentenced
Medical Liability Limitation in the Premature Births
Abu Dhabi Court has affirmed in a recent ruling that it is necessary for the Subject Court to know the legal reason for the case subject or the judgment sentenced and it shall take into account all the elements of harm and compensation based on the same.
The Subject Court shall respond to the substantive defense of the litigants that may change the opinion in the case. If the court does not mention the legal reason for the judgment, the elements of harm and compensation and the pieces of evidence affecting the dispute while the litigant asserts its significance, and does not review what is provided to indicate that it understands the reality of the case, and the judgment disregarding or refusing a substantial defense provided by the litigant without an acceptable reason, this results in nullity of the judgment.
The judgment must include what reassures its reviewer that the court understands the facts, elements of harm and pieces of evidence and has reviewed the litigants’ defense and confronted the same with the adequate acceptable reply and that the judgment disregarding a defense that would change the opinion in the case is deficiency in reasoning, as the court must respond to the substantial defense.
The judgment did not reply in its reasons on the pleading provided by the Appellants for lack of responsibility and reduction of the harms affected the son of the Appellees as mentioned in the report of the Supreme Committee for Medical Liability which confirmed that the child was born after IVF pregnancy and his birth was premature through an urgent caesarean section in the 25th week of pregnancy due to the early separation of the placenta and he was placed in the premature babies center with the pathological symptoms he was originally born with and mentioned in the report of the medical committee.
The harms that the doctor may be questioned about, with their assumption, are the retinopathy of the right eye and poor eyesight of the left eye and it is the normal result of the premature birth, with the assumption of error, no more, considering that the child’s pathological condition is a natural result of the premature birth, and neither the hospital nor the treating team is questioned about the separation of the placenta, especially that the committee’s report does not attribute any medical error other than what affected the eye.
The retinopathy in the eye is a natural error affects the premature infants who were born prematurely. This is confirmed by the subsequent medical report that the Appellants’ son suffers from congenital deformities and pathological conditions not related to the hospital or the medical team, except what was mentioned about the eye. What is raised by the Appellants that the child has a permanent disability, this is before his birth with the possibility to lose his life during the time of hearing the case, with no error proven on the part of the medical team.
The appealed judgment and the first instance judgment ignored this essential defense which resulted in deficiency in reasoning and breaching the right of defense, in addition to the random and uncontrolled compensation which did not indicate the elements of harm, especially that the harm attributed to the medical team, if any, does not exceed the eye harm. This is explained by the report of the supreme medical committee and the subsequent report and the appealed ruling did not reply on the same, that is why it should be rejected.
Whereas this deploring is in order and the Appellants try to confirm their irresponsibility and the reduction of harms affected the Appellees’ son, from the beginning of the dispute, as declared by the report of the Supreme Committee for Medical Liability which confirmed that the child was born prematurely because of the separation of the placenta and was placed in the premature babies center with the pathological symptoms he was originally born with.
The harms that the doctor may be questioned about are the retinopathy of the right eye and poor eyesight of the left eye, especially that the committee’s report does not attribute any medical error other than what affected the eye. The appealed judgment and the first instance judgment ignored this essential defense which resulted in deficiency in reasoning and breaching the right of defense, in addition to the random and uncontrolled compensation which did not indicate the elements of harm and rules of compensation determined by the provisions of Islamic Sharia and the law and based its judgment on insufficient reasons.
The appealed ruling did not realize that, therefore it made a mistake in understanding the facts with the deficiency in reasoning which led to breaching the law. This necessitates its rejection without the need to search the other reasons for the appeals, and it should be referred as well.
Mohamed Mahmoud Al Marzooqi law firm
Attorney / Mohamed Al Marzooqi
Mohamed Al Marzooqi advocates & Consultancy
Lawyer in Abu Dhabi, Dubai – UAE
