National Centre of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, et al. v. M. O-shvili

Case No. as-771-986-08
Download Judgment: English Georgian

The Plaintiff had a number of medical procedures related to urological problems and tuberculosis over the course of several years at Tbilisi State Medical University Clinic. The Plaintiff alleged that the medical institution had been obligated to provide him with information about the diagnosis and necessary anti-tuberculosis treatment, and its failure to do so had had a negative impact on his health.

The Appellate Court found Tbilisi State Medical University Clinic liable for not providing the Plaintiff information about his disease and awarded him 10,000 GED in damages. The Plaintiff appealed both pecuniary and non pecuniary damages and requests 100,000 GEL non pecuniary damage reimbursement.

The Cassation Court agreed with the Appellate Court that harm incurred was not easily quantifiable in term of reimburseable funds. The Cassation Court noted that the plaintiff did not indicate in his claim why he disagreed with the amount imposed by the Appellate Court or a factual or legal basis to challenge such award. The Cassation Court held that complaint was not satisfied and confirmed the Cassation Court’s judgment.

“The Cassation Court shares the Appellate Court’s opinion that the purpose of non pecuniary reimbursement is not the full restitution of the right violated, because the harm incurred does not have an equal amount of money to be reimbursed. At the same time the compensation cannot be determined without boundaries. It is natural M. O-shvili was struck by huge moral ache because of such long and complex disease. But the Appellate Court established only the fault of the Tbilisi State Medical University Clinic Named after Academician Nikoloz Kipshidze and determined the sum of 10 000 GEL. In the Cassation Complaint the founded cassation claim as envisioned by Article 407 of Civil Procedural Code is not presented and neither a factual nor legal basis against the outcome is indicated. There is also no indication about advisability why the respondent should be imposed on the additional sum for pecuniary damage.” Page 4.