The General Foundation of Compensation
Medical malpractice claims rest on the general rules of compensation for harm: a person who, through an unlawful intentional or negligent act, causes damage to another person is obliged to compensate it. This norm is the foundation of delictual liability — what matters is the unlawfulness of the act, fault in the form of intent or negligence, and the existence of harm, and it is on establishing these elements that the success of a claim depends. Intent and negligence are the two forms of fault: in the first, the actor aims at the harm or consciously admits its occurrence; in the second, the actor fails to exercise the necessary care without wishing the result. Medical disputes concern almost exclusively the second form, which is why the fate of a case depends on proving the measure of care that was to be expected in the particular situation.
In the medical context this is a particularly sensitive field: a patient entrusts health, and life itself, to a doctor and an institution, and when treatment does not produce the expected result, the question arises whether this was an ordinary medical risk or an unlawful negligent act. The law answers this question through the general foundations, and the assessment of each case turns on its particular facts.
Harm Caused by a Medical Institution
Harm caused to a person's health during treatment in a medical institution — including the result of a surgical operation or an incorrect diagnosis and other cases — is compensated on general grounds. There is thus no separate, special liability regime for the medical sphere: a claim is anchored in the same delictual norms that apply in other compensation cases.
The possibility of excluding fault is especially significant: the person who caused the harm is released from liability if that person proves that no fault can be attributed to the occurrence of the harm. In practice this means that the pivotal issue in the dispute is the assessment of culpability — whether the medical professional acted with the care that was to be expected — and it is expert and investigative evidence that serves this assessment. Medical documentation — the anamnesis, records, the diagnosis and the description of the interventions performed — supplies the raw material of that assessment, because it reflects what information the physician had when deciding and how the conduct corresponded to existing medical knowledge. Preserving one's own medical records and obtaining them in full before initiating a dispute is therefore of practical importance for every patient.
Dissemination of Incorrect Information and Public Interest
The claims field also touches the rules on the dissemination of information: a person who intentionally or negligently disseminates or publicizes facts harmful to another person's property is obliged to compensate the resulting damage where those facts are clearly incorrect. In the medical context this norm matters where inaccurate information calls into question the reputation of an institution or a professional.
At the same time the law protects the public interest: no obligation to compensate arises from statements that serve the protection of lawful public interests. The boundary between the two situations — the dissemination of clearly incorrect facts and the publicizing of socially significant information — requires separate analysis in each case.
The Limitation Period for a Claim
Timing is decisive: the limitation period for the right to demand compensation for delictual harm is three years from the moment the victim learned of the harm or of the person obliged to compensate it. The period thus begins not with the abstract moment of infliction but with the victim's awareness — when the victim knew both of the harm and of who must compensate it.
In medical cases this detail is frequently contested: consequences sometimes manifest later, and it is precisely the establishment of the moment of awareness that determines whether the period has run. The remaining rules on computing and interrupting the period are governed by other provisions, so consulting a specialist in good time is the safer course.
Frequently Asked Questions on Medical Malpractice Claims
Under which rules is harm caused during treatment compensated?
On general grounds — including surgical operations, incorrect diagnoses and other cases; no special regime exists for this sphere.
Can a medical professional be released from liability?
Yes — the person who caused the harm is released from liability upon proving that no fault of that person contributed to the occurrence of the harm.
Within what period must a claim be brought?
The limitation period is three years from the moment the victim learned of the harm or of the person obliged to compensate it.
Is the dissemination of harmful information always compensable?
No: where the facts are clearly incorrect and spread intentionally or negligently, the damage is compensated; statements serving the protection of lawful public interests create no obligation.
How We Help on Legal.ge
A medical malpractice claim requires an exact analysis of both legal and factual circumstances: establishing unlawfulness, fault and the causal link, preparing expert assessments and computing the limitation period correctly. The Legal.ge team will assess your situation and help you gather the documentation and prepare a claim or a court demand. Contact us — we will protect your interests throughout the process.