篇名

【醫療民事法】美容醫學植入材質不同案:美容醫學之說明義務   免費試閱

並列篇名

Medical Civil Law: The Implantation in Aesthetic Medicine against the Confirmation

作者
中文摘要

裁判字號 臺灣高等法院104年度醫上易字第2號民事判決
引用法條 民法第227條、227-1條、醫療法第63條、64條、81條、醫師法第12條之1
病人X至診所接受隆鼻與墊下巴手術,術前與諮詢師約定植入材質,惟醫師Y於施術時植入者與約定不符,導致術後發生鼻內填充物晃動、位移等情況,X認為Y未依約定施術,且術前未盡告知,遂提訴請求損害賠償。法院指出諮詢師為診所代理人,其代理之意思表示的效力及於診所,若植入材質不符約定,應認診所給付不完全;又本件Y於術前未告知填充物材質及盡說明義務,X得依民法不完全給付之規定,請求損害賠償。
近來醫療訴訟實務多主張醫師違反告知義務,本案醫師Y施術植入之填充物與病人X於術前約定者不符,即違反契約之主給付義務;又植入該填充物之既存或可預見的風險為安全說明義務之內容,倘若醫師疏未說明,仍屬主給付義務之債務不履行。

英文摘要

The patient X had a confirmation of the material of the implantation with the counselor, before he took a rhinoplasty surgery and a surgery of pad chin in a clinic. However, the implantation, which was operated by the physician Y, didn’t identify with what they have confirmed. It caused the instability of the infilling and displacement. The X complained to the court of the Y operating against the confirmation and unfulfilling the duty of the explanation, and requested compensation. The court deemed the counselor as the agency of the clinic, and the expression of the intention also worked to the clinic. The material of the implantation against the confirmation shall be uncomplete payment. Furthermore, the Y didn’t notify the X of the material of infilling, which was against the duty of explanation. As the result, the X can request compensation according to the regulations of uncomplete payment in Civil Law.
Many physicians were accused of disobeying the duty of the explanation in the medical litigation nowadays. It shall be a breach of the major obligation of contract that the implantation which operated by the Y in this case didn’t identify with the confirmation. Besides, the risk of the implantation belongs to the duty of the explanation. It also shall be a breach of the major obligation of contract, if the physician doesn’t explain it.

起訖頁

089-115

出版單位
DOI

10.3966/241553062016100002008  複製DOI  DOI查詢

QRCode