MEDICAL LAW

The last twenty years have shown an ever-increasing trend of seeking liability (criminal and civil) for doctors for their actions or omissions. The criminal assessment of the medical act is carried out by the criminal courts based on the provisions on bodily harm by negligence and on manslaughter by negligence (CC 314 and 320 respectively). The civil assessment of the medical act is carried out by the civil courts based mainly on the provisions on torts (CC 914 et seq.) and the provisions on insult to personality (CC 57 et seq.), while the raising of claims based on intra-contractual liability is not excluded. The pursuit of the doctor's criminal liability by filing a complaint or the doctor's civil liability by filing a lawsuit is at the discretion and initiative of the patient or his heirs, in the event that the patient has died.

Criminal liability

Criminal liability of the doctor exists when he has violated the commonly recognized rules of medical science. The medical act that was performed lege artis and was unsuccessful is not sufficient to establish negligence of the doctor. Thus, according to established case law, criminal liability of the doctor is not established when he correctly diagnosed the disease and applied one of the equally supported therapeutic treatments in science, which, however, failed. On the contrary, cases of neglect of the patient, delay in treating the incident, incorrect diagnosis, incorrect therapeutic treatment and technical error during the conduct of the operation are capable of creating criminal liability of the doctor. In the event that his behavior is deemed negligent by the criminal court, a penalty of deprivation of liberty is imposed.

Civil liability

Civil liability is distinguished into contractual liability (contract as a work lease or contract as a project lease) and tort liability. In practice, the most common claim for compensation is based on the provisions on tort, which give the plaintiff the right to claim compensation for moral damage (or mental suffering in the event of death) suffered. In civil courts, it is accepted that the doctor does not undertake an obligation to cure, but an obligation to provide full and consistent medical assistance. The conditions for the doctor's civil liability (based on the provisions on torts) are an act or omission of the doctor, the doctor's fault, i.e. his/her fraud or negligence, harm to the patient and a causal connection between the doctor's culpable conduct and the harm suffered by the patient. A recent case law development for the foundation of the tort liability of the doctor as a provider of services is the application of article 8 of Law 2251/1994 on consumer protection. This article provides for the reversal of the burden of proof. Thus, the injured party bears the burden of proving the provision of medical services, the damage and the causal link, and the doctor providing the services the absence of an illegal and culpable act on his part. In the event that his conduct is deemed negligent by the civil court, the doctor is required to pay the injured party or his heirs financial compensation.

Information and consent

Of particular importance for the evaluation of the doctor's conduct, both criminally and civilly, is the patient's prior detailed and clear information and consent regarding the medical procedure to which he is about to be subjected and the possible risks it entails. The patient's specific, clear and written consent for the proposed medical procedure may exempt the doctor from any potential liability, provided of course that the medical procedure was performed lege artis, and the damage caused to the patient was within the possible risks-complications, for which the patient was informed and consented. Visit our partners - leaders in modern footwear!

Practice and conclusions

In practice, the evaluation of medical acts by the Court is a complex and difficult process. Both judges and lawyers are unfamiliar with specialized medical terminology, while the fact that medicine is an empirical science and that the diagnosis of the patient's condition and the selection of the appropriate medical action are made through the process of probabilization, i.e. by evaluating the patient's symptoms and excluding the less likely diseases is often overlooked.

The number of lawsuits and actions brought against doctors has increased at a dizzying pace in our country, and their jurisprudential treatment tends to become increasingly favorable to patients (or their heirs). Thus, the awarding of high compensation by the Court is now common. This has resulted, on the one hand, in a more complete, stricter and fairer judicial treatment of each incident of medical negligence, and on the other hand, in the establishment of what is also referred to as “defensive medicine”, a manifestation of which is the performance of multiple, not absolutely necessary examinations for each medical incident, which insurance companies often refuse to cover, in order for the doctor to be legally protected in the event of a possible search for his responsibilities.

Our Law Firm with the decision no. A14246/2024 of the Three-Member Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens (28th section) was a great success, as it managed to recognize the obligation of the Greek State to pay our client the amount of 80,000 euros,
with legal interest at a rate of 6%, after it ruled that the damage to her health (bilateral paralysis of her vocal cords) was due to illegal actions of the Greek State, whose doctors did not act in accordance with the fundamental rules and principles of medical science, nor did they demonstrate the required diligence in the exercise of their duties, resulting in the improper execution of the legal surgical intervention of total thyroidectomy.

By decision no. 11177/2024 of the Three-Member Administrative Court of First Instance of Athens (25th section) The Greek State was held liable to pay our client the amount of 62,000 euros, with statutory interest at a rate of 61% per annum, for compensation for moral damage, because during his hospitalization in a public hospital he did not receive adequate and specialized care from the nursing staff, although he needed it due to his health condition (spastic paraplegia, spastic paresis of the upper limbs, obesity), resulting in the appearance of chronic bedsores. By the same decision, our client was awarded a separate amount of compensation due to the insult he suffered to his personality from the illegal and offensive behavior of the public hospital staff towards him.

Our Law Firm with the decision no. 1559/2025 of the Multi-member Court of First Instance of Athens (regular procedure) succeeded in dismissing a lawsuit seeking compensation and monetary compensation for moral damage against our client, the Doctor, since the facts proved that our client acted in accordance with the rules and principles of medical science and experience (lege artis), observing the objectively imposed care and diligence, while at the same time adequately informing the patient and obtaining her consent before performing any medical procedure on her. Therefore, our client's medical procedure was not proven to be negligent, nor was there any insult to the personality of the patient-plaintiff.