Introduction
On April 10, 2004, the Dubai Court of Cassation issued a significant judicial ruling in appeals numbered 2003/106 and 2003/108, both of which were filed during the statutory period and met all formal requirements.
The facts of the case involve a lawsuit brought by a parent against a medical clinic and a physician regarding a circumcision procedure performed on their child. The father, who filed the lawsuit, sought compensation in the amount of three million dirhams for the physical, moral, psychological, and emotional damages suffered by his child and family as a result of this procedure.
In detailing the facts, it appears that the parents noticed that their child was in an abnormal condition during urination and experienced difficulties in urination after the circumcision procedure.
The Lawsuit
After filing the lawsuit and presenting arguments, the court proceeded to examine the facts and evidence presented. From the preliminary information extracted from the case file, it appears that the father submitted evidence and medical certificates confirming that the child experienced problems following the circumcision procedure.
The court was tasked with determining the extent of the physician’s and the medical clinic’s responsibility for what happened to the child. It was necessary to establish whether the harm suffered by the child resulted from medical error or not.
The judgment issued by the court reflects the importance of the responsibility of doctors and medical institutions towards patients. Medical decisions and surgical procedures carry risks that can affect people’s lives, and therefore, they must be carried out with precision and professionalism.
The Child's Health Issue
The plaintiff claimed that two days after the circumcision procedure, the child had to be taken to the accident clinic at Al Wasl Hospital, where he was examined. The medical report confirmed health issues related to the circumcision procedure that had affected the child.
Criminal Penalties
In addition, the Department of Health and Medical Services issued a decision to penalize the concerned physician and the medical clinic for the medical error that led to the child’s injury. The physician was referred for criminal trial, and the court issued a conviction and a fine.
The father had initially sought three million dirhams in financial compensation, but the court ruled that he should be awarded only one hundred and fifty thousand dirhams.
Appeals and Petitions
Following the judgment, the plaintiff appealed the decision, but the Court of Appeal upheld the previous judgment. The plaintiff then filed a petition to the Court of Cassation based on specific grounds.
In an attempt to assert his rights and seek fair compensation, the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Cassation, where he argued in his submission that the judgment being appealed was flawed in the application of the law and in causation. He pointed out that his relationship was directly with the physician being appealed against, without any involvement from the medical clinic, thereby denying any subordination.
Since the law obliges the subordinate to pay compensation ruled upon to the superior if certain conditions are met, including the existence of a subordinate relationship and the occurrence of damages by the superior due to the performance of their duty, it becomes clear from the facts that the court considered these conditions to be met in the case before it.
Final Judgment
It is worth noting that the issue of whether the element of subordination exists or not is considered a factual matter that the court evaluates based on the evidence and facts presented.
In a more detailed explanation of the appeal, the appellant argued that the judgment being appealed had erred in the application of the law and in its reasoning. The appellant pointed out that the first respondent did not comply with the request of the second respondent physician to bring the child for follow-up, changing bandages, and cleaning.
The appellant also asserted that there was a surgical procedure performed after the circumcision, which was unsuccessful, indicating the presence of surgical complications unrelated to the second respondent medical clinic and physician.
The appellant contended that the compensation awarded was excessive, as the cost of the surgical procedure in the most expensive hospitals did not exceed 22,000 dirhams. The appellant emphasized the lack of a basis for the psychological and moral damages included in the compensation.
Continuing to address the appeal, the appellant argued that the judgment in the criminal case had an absolute authority not only for the parties but also for everyone. He emphasized that this judgment constitutes an authority on people due to the multiple guarantees established by the legislator in criminal cases, aiming to uncover the truth, considering the connection to life, freedom, and the higher interests of society.
The appellant also clarified that the judgment being appealed relied on information and evidence from the criminal case in which the appellant was not a party, and he argued that this constituted a legal error warranting the annulment of the judgment.
In a more detailed account of the matters presented before the Court of Cassation, the appellant asserted that the judgment in the criminal case was an authority on everyone because of the multiple guarantees established by the legislator in criminal cases, which aim to uncover the truth, especially since they are related to lives, freedoms, and the higher interests of society.
The appellant stated that what the criminal judgment concluded regarding the error of the second respondent physician was an authority in the pending case, even if the medical clinic was not a party to the criminal case.
The appellant pointed out that the court is not obliged to respond to either of the parties’ requests for referring the case for investigation or appointing an expert, as long as it finds sufficient evidence in the case files to form its own conviction. He explained that doctors or surgeons must perform their duty with competence, skill, and a high degree of care and attention.
The court, in its reasoning, mentioned that the child, who underwent circumcision, used to urinate normally before the procedure, as evidenced by the existence of the original urethral opening. The court pointed out that the circumcision procedure was performed without taking the necessary precautions, leading to damage to the original urethral opening.
As a result, the court relied on the forensic medical report, which confirmed that the medical procedures performed on the child had a negative impact on his health. Therefore, the court ordered the medical clinic and the physician to pay compensation to the appellant.
Expert Opinions
Ahmed Saber – Head of Litigation Department: Ahmed Saber, Head of the Litigation Department, emphasized the importance of this judgment and its role in determining the responsibility of doctors in circumcision procedures. He stated, “This judgment highlights the responsibility of doctors and medical institutions in providing healthcare with precision and professionalism. We must be cautious and vigilant to ensure patient safety.”
Nada Al-Mawwi – Head of Consulting Department: Nada Al-Mawwi, Head of the Consulting Department, expressed her approval of the decision issued by the Court of Cassation. She said, “This judgment reflects the court’s commitment to protecting citizens’ rights and achieving justice. We should have a multi-faceted approach to ensure the provision of quality healthcare for patients and avoid undesirable medical incidents.”
In Conclusion
However, it should be noted that judicial decisions reflect the legal situation and the evidence presented to the court. The responsibility of doctors and medical institutions in providing healthcare to patients remains a sensitive and important issue that must be handled with caution and professionalism.
In conclusion, this judgment underscores the importance of the role played by courts in ensuring justice and protecting the rights of citizens, as well as reaffirming the responsibilities of doctors and medical institutions towards patients.