A Reverse Onus Which Was Disadvantage to One of the Parties Shall Not Prohibit Any Other Opportunity to Present an Evidence
The plaintiff complained that the accused should afford the responsibility of compensation for damage because of wrong medical treatment which lead to the health damage oft he plaintiff. The difference between diagnostic error and examination error was presented in this judgement. The former was happened because of a wrong interpretation to the result of the examination and the latter meant that a supposed examination was not be undertaken. In addition, there was though a possibility to shift burden of proof to the other party, only when the examination error was extremely serious, a reverse onus which was disadvantage to one of the parties shall not prohibit him any other opportunity to present an evidence.