Individual ordered to pay Dhs70,000 for damaging medical centre's device in Abu Dhabi

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court ordered an individual to pay Dhs70,000 in compensation to a medical centre for damaging an eye examination device.

During his visit, he entered the eye examination room without permission after being examined by a doctor. He used the eye examination device, which is a microscope used to examine the eyes with a high-precision optical system, and made a mistake.

The medical centre filed a lawsuit against one of its patients, seeking compensation for the cost of repairing a medical device estimated at Dhs60,000, as well as additional compensation for lost profits resulting from the device malfunctioning, totalling Dhs198,000.

The Court explained that the centre had not provided it with any official document, price quote or invoice issued by a competent authority that definitively proved this cost.

The papers also lacked any technical reports or evidence determining the actual amount of damage and the value of the necessary repairs.

According to the general principles of evidence, the burden of proof lies with the centre. A mere claim without supporting evidence is insufficient for such a significant financial claim. As the judiciary neither creates evidence nor bases its judgements on conjecture, probability or unverified estimates, but rather on established and conclusive evidence, the court rules to reject this request.

The Court further explained that her claim for material and moral compensation, as well as lost profits due to the device malfunctioning, stemmed from a reviewer's error which resulted in the device shutting down completely. This caused actual damage to the centre, which relies on the device for its daily operations. This led to direct losses due to the centre's inability to use the device, as well as the device's continued malfunction over a period of time. The centre was deprived of the device's benefits, and was burdened with extra effort to mitigate the impact of its downtime.

The Court also found that the damage was not accidental, but rather the result of a deliberate act by the reviewer. Therefore, the centre is entitled to material compensation of Dhs50,000. Moral compensation is not intended to enrich the centre, but to compensate for the damage to its commercial reputation and customer confidence. This has led to indirect losses due to a decline in public confidence and a fall in its moral standing among its peers, as a result of an illegal act committed against the centre by a third party. The centre is therefore entitled to moral compensation of Dhs20,000 for this damage to its legal personality.