Court orders MOH to pay KD 78,000 compensation
The Administrative Court of Cassation ruled to cancel the appealed ruling and oblige the Ministry of Health, the Undersecretary of the Ministry, and the Director of the Abroad Treatment Department, in their capacity, to pay 78 thousand dinars to a female Kuwaiti citizen.
Lawyer Nour Bin Haider filed a lawsuit on behalf of her client, who faced an unexpected situation during her medical treatment in the United States, reports Al-Rai daily.
While undergoing treatment for a lung clot that led to a coma, the client discovered that her medical benefits were abruptly terminated before the completion of the treatment.
Given the severity of her medical condition and the treating physician’s recommendation against her return to Kuwait, the plaintiff unsuccessfully sought assistance from the health office in Washington.
Consequently, she was compelled to cover the expenses of her treatment and those accompanying her until her return to Kuwait, a year after the cessation of her benefits.
Despite the Supreme Medical Committee for Treatment Abroad approving only a partial disbursement of $70,000 for the treatment bills, it refused to compensate the plaintiff for additional expenses incurred by her and those accompanying her.
In response, the plaintiff’s defense submitted a comprehensive set of documents to the court, including medical reports and correspondence related to her client’s health condition that had not been presented to the relevant medical committee for consideration regarding the extension of the treatment period.
Initially, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her an amount of 78,000 dinars.
However, the Court of Appeal overturned this decision. In the subsequent appeal to the Court of Cassation, lawyer Nour Bin Haider steadfastly adhered to the expert report, arguing that her client was entitled to the previously determined amount, which included 200 dinars per day for 13 months following the treating doctor’s recommendation.
The Court of Cassation ultimately concluded that the plaintiff is indeed entitled to the aforementioned amount.
