Abu Dhabi: The Federal Supreme Court, in chambers, rejected an appeal against an appellate ruling that overturned a decision by the Supreme Committee for Medical Liability, which held a female doctor (general practitioner) responsible for a medical error following a non-surgical cosmetic procedure for an actress, which resulted in a 2% facial disfigurement.
The case file revealed that the patient categorically denied in her testimony that the doctor in question had performed the operation, and that another doctor had performed it.
The Supreme Committee for Medical Liability based its overturned decision on the grounds that the medical care provided to the patient at a medical centre violated established medical standards, and that a serious medical error occurred, namely, practicing medicine outside the scope of specialisation and without a license. The error involved non-surgical cosmetic procedures, and the centre’s management allowed the patient to perform cosmetic procedures despite lacking the necessary license, and failed to document the type and expiration dates of the materials used.
It confirmed the absence of a medical error (asymmetry in the patient’s cheeks, and a halve on the left side), which affects her performance as an actress, and constitutes a deformity estimated at about 2% of its original nature.
The appeal ruling upholding the initial ruling acquitting the doctor was based on the absence of the material element of the crime, as the patient categorically denied in her testimony that the accused doctor had performed the operation on her, and she did not recognise her when confronted with her, and attributed the act to another doctor, who was later found not to be present at the centre.
The Federal Supreme Court explained that the patient’s denial invalidates any validity of the papers and signatures attributed to the doctor, which makes the Supreme Committee’s decision regarding the medical error attributed to the doctor lacking a basis for reason and tainted with illegitimacy.
It pointed to another decision issued by the local medical liability committee, which concluded that the doctor was not at fault for the medical error.
It explained that “when the patient was confronted with the doctor against whom the complaint was filed, the former admitted that the doctor against whom the complaint was filed did not perform the operation, and attributed it to a doctor who does not exist in the medical centre.”
The court affirmed that the presumption of innocence applies to every person, and the court may not rely on an allegation that has not been examined and proven to have occurred by the person to whom it was attributed. The conviction must be based on certainty and conviction, and a mere allegation that is not supported or corroborated by what supports it and raises it to the level of truth from the reality that speaks of its existence and reveals its realisation is not sufficient for this. The doctor’s responsibility, like criminal responsibility, must be proven on certainty and conviction, not on doubt and conjecture.
It stressed that it is not permissible to rely on the validity of the documents contained in the medical file if they conflict with the patient’s admission, and the objection to the appealed ruling on the grounds of violating the law to exclude what the report of the Supreme Committee for Medical Liability concluded is unsound and unacceptable.
Medical error
The Federal Supreme Court affirmed that the error in medical liability is based on a violation of the law, according to the text of Article (6) of Federal Decree-Law No. 4 of 2016 on Medical Liability, which defined medical error as “that which is committed by a practitioner of the profession as a result of any of the following reasons: his ignorance of the technical matters that are supposed to be known by everyone who practices the profession of the same degree and specialisation, his failure to follow the professional and medical principles known, his failure to exercise the necessary care, negligence and failure to follow caution and prudence.”