Iranian Hospital ordered to pay Dh1m in damages

DUBAI — The Courts of Dubai have ordered a private hospital to pay a compensation of Dh1 million to a patient owing to serious physical and spiritual damages. The lawsuit dates back to May 2004, when Mustafa S.S.N. was admitted to the hospital for severe spondylitis located between the first and second vertebra.

By Mohsen Rashed

Published: Sun 18 Dec 2005, 9:50 AM

Last updated: Thu 2 Apr 2015, 7:24 PM

His contention was that the urgent surgeries carried out deteriorated his health, increased his backache, and led to neural hypofunction in the very place of the surgery.

Another surgery was performed on May 16, 2004 to remove a hematoma, which, he alleged, resulted in a total hemiplegia and disorders in his orchis and urocyst. Mustafa was discharged from the hospital on May 20, 2004 due to his deteriorating status. He was admitted to Rashed Hospital, where he proved to have a vacuole hematoma in the internal and side spinal column allegedly due to the two surgeries.

Mustafa filed a suit against the hospital to pay him a compensation of Dh8,300,000 besides a compensation of Dh420,000 for total disability. He accused the hospital of hastily and inaccurately performing the two surgeries, without carrying out enough examinations and analysis, which resulted in serious damages. The court has delegated a three-member medical committee from the Health Department to thoroughly examine and check the plaintiff’s medical status and investigate the procedures followed by the hospital.

Basing its verdict on the committee’s report, the Court of First Instance ordered the hospital to pay the patient a compensation of one million dirhams. However, both the plaintiff and the hospital contested the verdict before the Court of Appeal, which upheld the verdict of the lower court.

The hospital contested the verdict again at the Court of Cassation, arguing that its responsibility over its staff varies according to its actual authority and control over them. Having no direct control or follow-up on the surgeons and likewise, the hospital should not to be held responsible. The CC refuted the petition, pinpointing that the surgeons who performed the surgeries have been working for the very hospital and do fall under its authority. Thus, the hospital should be held responsible for their faults disregarding any technical control over their work.

Besides, the patient proved to be suffering from chronic leukaemia after the second surgery. The hospital medical system did not trace that fatal disease before the surgery. The hospital is to be held responsible for the patient’s total disability, the court ruled. Therefore, the court rejected the plea and upheld the verdict of the Appellate Court.