On February 24, 2017, at about 8:00 pm before bathing, the child's temperature was measured, it turned out to be slightly elevated - 37C, although there were no signs of any disease, the child was only slightly capricious. I gave my daughter Nurofen syrup to relieve symptoms and reduce fever, because. She suggested that her daughter's whims were connected precisely with an increase in temperature, but Arina could not even swallow it. immediately formed a gag reflex. The time was after 21:00. After that, I fed my daughter and began to put her to bed. Arina vomited, first once, then a second time, and she became very naughty, refused to drink and eat. Approximately 00-50 o'clock. daughter vomited repeatedly, after which at 00-58 h. (02/25/2017) I called an ambulance, reported the reasons for the call, described the condition of my daughter, indicated her age - 6 months. At the same time, I was able to get through to the SSMP console only 4 times, tk. the answering machine was always on. According to the extract, the call was transferred to the SSMP brigade only at 03-00. and the SSMP brigade came to us at 03-11 o'clock. I explained the reason for the call to the paramedics who arrived, they examined the child, looked at the diaper and reported the need for hospitalization. at 03-59 we were taken to the emergency room of the N.N. Ivanova (Samara, Karl Marx Ave., 165A). Within 30 min. the emergency room nurse filled out the documents and wrote out a referral for blood and ultrasound. After the examination, approximately at 05-00 h. My daughter and I returned to the emergency room. A surgeon came out to us, examined the child's stomach and said that there were no pathologies. After that, we were in the emergency room for about 20 minutes, the child's condition worsened, she refused food and water, she began to roll her eyes, her skin was very pale, it was clear that the child was in very poor condition. After that, the pediatrician Trifonova Elena Alexandrovna came out to us and again examined the child. At this time, the child vomited, already vomiting bile. The doctor noticed this and asked me: “Is the child always so pale?” I said, “No, it's because the baby has been throwing up all night and the baby is already dehydrated, she doesn't drink." The child vomited again and the doctor saw it. The pediatrician suggested that the child might have an infection and that he should go to the N.A. Semashko. At the same time, no medical assistance was provided to us, despite the fact that it was obvious that the child was in a very bad condition and needed emergency medical care! We were sent with a sick child to the N.A. Semashko under its own power, i.e. in your car. It's good that we have a car, but what about those who don't have a car? And this despite the fact that the child in the emergency room of the State Budgetary Institution of Healthcare of the State Children's Clinical Hospital No. 1 named after N.N. Ivanova was delivered by the SSMP brigade! We arrived at the N.A. Semashko State Clinical Hospital No. 2 at about 06-00. We stayed in the emergency room for about 30 minutes, we were met by the doctor Viktor Ivanovich Baranov with a very dissatisfied look and disdain, all this time the medical staff filled out the documents, again they did not provide any medical assistance to the child, although it was obvious from her condition that medical assistance was simply is necessary and URGENT! In GBUZ SO "SGKB No. 2 named after N. A. Semashko, the doctor Viktor Ivanovich Baranov did not even deign to come to simple method temperature and pressure measurements. We were placed in a paid ward and ordered to give the child water to drink. All this time, the daughter vomited, but none of the medical staff approached us and did not provide us with any help. All this time I was next to my daughter, it is impossible to describe my condition: anxiety and fear for her life and health, as well as indignation, why for such a long time, seeing that the child’s condition is deteriorating, no one is giving us any help. After all, it was precisely because of the child’s illness that we were hospitalized and there were medical workers around me, that is, people with special education, called by virtue of their official duties to provide this assistance. At the same time, I was not able to adequately assess the condition of the child, since this is the first child and for the entire period of her life of 6 months, she fell ill for the first time. After 3 hours, that is, after 09-30 hours. a nurse came and gave the child an injection, explained that it was antibiotics. After a while, about 30 min. another nurse came and invited us to donate blood from a finger. While I was collecting Arina to go with her to donate blood, her condition deteriorated sharply, she stopped opening her eyes. The time was about 11 o'clock. I ran to the doctor's post and reported it. The doctor invited the resuscitator Pavel Grigoryevich Moiseev, Arina was taken away and at 11-30 o'clock. reported that death had occurred.

Clients often ask me how much to evaluate the physical and mental suffering caused by a medical error?

It is very difficult to give a definite answer to this question ...

Agree, how can you voice the cost of the premature death of a close relative?

How much to evaluate the failed expectations to survive the feelings of fatherhood and motherhood when the long-awaited child dies?

How much to ask the court for a kidney, arm, leg, finger or tooth taken away as a result of improper treatment that will never grow back?

studying judicial practice in cases related to medical malpractice, I considered it necessary to summarize the information available in the public domain and tell what amounts are awarded by the courts to patients affected by medical negligence.

I tried to indicate only those judicial acts that have entered into force and which indicate specific amounts to be reimbursed.

I will add that in the course of work I constantly encounter one big difficulty - this is not a large number of judicial acts, which indicate the names of medical organizations, the fault of the doctors of which was confirmed, as well as where the amount of money collected is indicated. In most cases, this information is not available. The reasons why the courts do not indicate this information, to be honest, I do not understand ...

8,000,000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Salekhard City Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District dated April 10, 2012 on civil case No. 2-8/2012 with the Salekhard Regional Clinical Hospital in favor of the mother of a newborn child who died due to a “medical error”.

07/01/2011 At 14:00, the plaintiff went into labor. 07/02/2011, at 03:30, the second stage of labor was registered, contractions of an agonizing nature after 2-3 minutes after 40-45 seconds, the location of the fetal head in the posterior view in the pelvic cavity. At 04:30, there was a lack of advancement of the head, which, with the normal frequency and duration of contractions in the above period of labor, was regarded as weakness of labor activity.

Initiated labor augmentation with oxytocin did not lead to head advancement and was turned off at 05:00.

The doctor decided to end the birth with a caesarean section.

At 05:20 a doctor was called.

At 05:40, during a joint examination by doctors, it was decided to end the birth naturally.

At 0600 hours, a stillborn female fetus weighing 3,210 grams and 51 centimeters tall was born by natural childbirth.

The experts found that:

“A traumatic brain injury in the fetus occurred in the second stage of labor. The last one started at 03:30 on July 2, 2011 and ended at 06:00 on July 2, 2011, when a dead girl was born through the natural birth canal. On July 2, 2011, at 0300 hours, the fetal head was in the pelvic cavity. Then for 2 hours the advancement of the head did not occur.

This could take place either with the weakness of labor, or with a clinical discrepancy between the size of the pelvis and the fetal head. Each of these reasons was an indication for changing the plan of labor management to operative delivery.

At the same time, in the first case, it was necessary to perform the operation of applying obstetric forceps, and in the second, a caesarean section. The death of the fetus followed as a result of a birth traumatic brain injury in the form of a pronounced pathological configuration of the head, rupture of the sagittal sinus, tears of the dura mater in the area of ​​the sagittal sinus and cerebellar indentations, subdural, epidural (under and above the dura mater), subarachnoid (under the soft meninges). membranes), ventricular (in the ventricles of the brain) hemorrhages.

Indications for delivery by caesarean section arose in the second stage of labor. These indications were the discrepancy between the size of the pelvis and the head of the fetus (clinically narrow pelvis) and distress (acute hypoxia) of the fetus.

These indications, aimed at saving the life of the fetus, were absolute. With prolonged standing of the fetal head in one plane, a birth traumatic brain injury is possible in the event of the development of a pathological configuration of the head. In such an obstetric situation, provided that the fetal head is in the pelvic cavity, an urgent caesarean section is necessary for delivery before the development of a birth traumatic brain injury.

Thus: the absence of advancement of the head for more than 2 hours with contractions normal in duration and frequency, the presence of a birth traumatic brain injury with a pronounced pathological configuration of the head indicate that there was a clinically narrow pelvis during childbirth, and not weakness of labor activity; delivery through the natural birth canal with a discrepancy between the size of the pelvis and the head of the fetus (clinically narrow pelvis) was the cause of a birth traumatic brain injury of the fetus and its stillbirth; timely adequate assessment of the obstetric situation, timely adequate change in the plan of labor management, timely adequate delivery should have prevented birth traumatic brain injury to the fetus and its stillbirth; there is a direct causal relationship between the actions (inaction) of medical personnel and a birth traumatic brain injury that caused the death of the fetus.

3,000,000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, recovered by the decision of the Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Novosibirsk dated September 24, 2010 in civil case No. proper supervision and right action doctors, dead twins were born.

2,000,000 rubles on account of non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Smolninsky District Court of St. Petersburg dated March 30, 2011 in civil case No. 2-85 / 2011 with the St. Petersburg State Health Institution "Maternity Hospital No. 13" in favor of A.T.G. as a result of a medical error, a dead child was born, as well as which, due to the wrong actions of doctors, the left ureter was damaged and the uterus was removed.

May 19, 2010 at about 06:00 a.m. At 34 weeks pregnant, the plaintiff went into labor.

Upon admission to the maternity hospital, the plaintiff informed the doctors about the time of the onset of contractions, as well as information about her state of health, provided the available medical documentation.

In the emergency department, the diagnosis was made: “secondary weakness of labor activity, a scar on the uterus”, however, with the operation “ cesarean section» The doctors were in no hurry, the recommendations of the gynecologist, available in the dispensary book, were not taken into account.

May 19, 2010 at 11:40 p.m. (after 17 hours from the start of contractions) the operation "caesarean section" was performed, after which G.N.N. reported that the baby was stillborn. However, this was not the only consequence of poor quality medical care. During the operation, the uterus ruptured along the old scar, the operation was expanded to extirpation of the uterus without appendages, during the operation, the doctor allowed the patient's left ureter to be injured.

1,500,000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Salekhard City Court of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District dated June 24, 2012 in civil case No. 2-11 / 2012 with the Salekhard District Clinical Hospital in favor of D. mistakes."

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

The plaintiff gave birth to a son weighing 4,345 grams, 58 centimeters tall, who was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit with a preliminary diagnosis: "severe asphyxia, a high risk group for the development of cerebral edema, multiple organ failure." Six days later, the boy died, the cause of death was the consequences of severe asphyxia during childbirth. The experts found that in the process of obstetric care, it was necessary to change the initial plan for the management of childbirth - from delivery through the natural birth canal to operative delivery - caesarean section.

1,500,000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Serov District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated April 4, 2014 in civil case No. 2-176 / 2014 with the Serov City Hospital No. 1 in favor of K.I. - the father of a newborn child who died from birth trauma during childbirth.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

The plaintiff's wife gave birth to a daughter weighing 4,300 grams and 59 centimeters tall. After childbirth, the child was diagnosed with a fracture of the right clavicle, hemorrhages in the face, overlapping of the skull bones along the sagittal suture, positional edema of the head, extensive hematoma of the parietal-occipital temporal region, and severe hypoxic and traumatic brain damage.

Two months later, the girl died.

Tragic consequences occurred due to the fact that the gynecologists chose the wrong tactics for conducting childbirth: the plaintiff's wife needed an emergency operative delivery - a caesarean section, while the birth was performed through the natural birth canal.

1,500,000 rubles on account of non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Central District Court of Sochi dated 07.07.2015 in case No. 2-7 / 2015 with the Tuapse District Hospital No. 1 in favor of K.R.G. developed a disease - neuritis of the radial nerve, accompanied by a complete violation of the functions of the left hand.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

October 12, 2006 K.R.G. was hospitalized by the Emergency Medical Service due to a domestic injury of the left upper limb in the traumatology department of the Central City Hospital of Tuapse with a diagnosis of “fracture of the anatomical neck of the left humerus without displacement; open fracture of the left olecranon and head radius with a slight displacement, bruised wound of the region of the olecranon”.

On October 18, 2006, the plaintiff underwent an operation - osteosynthesis with a beam of three spokes of the left humerus; then the fragments of the ulna are fixed to the proximal fragment with two spokes in a cross (complaints after the operation Klyueva R.G. does not show).

On October 24, 2006, the second operation was performed: two wires were additionally inserted transarticularly, subcutaneously.

October 25, 2006 K.R.G. I began to experience pain, numbness in my fingers and hands. There was a phenomenon of radiation neuritis, the absence of dorsal extension of the hand ("hung hand").

During the subsequent hospitalizations of the plaintiff, the function of the left hand was not restored, for more than 8 years she had a persistent loss of the function of the left hand.

The hospital tried to avoid liability and explained in court that the cause of the consequences was an injury received by the patient. However, at the court session it was proved that there had been a medical error - the radial nerve was damaged by a surgical pin during the second operation.

1 100 000 on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Soviet District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated February 16, 2015 in civil case No. 2-3 / 2015 with MBUZ "Maternity Hospital No. Krasnoyarsk JSC "Russian Railways" in favor of Ch., in which, after a cesarean section, the remains of placental tissue and membranes were not removed, which led to the occurrence of purulent endometritis in the patient, failure of the sutures on the uterus, an abscess of the double-glazed space, serous-fibrous peritonitis, anemia severe degree.

1,000,000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Tomsk dated August 11, 2010 in civil case No. A., whose left leg was amputated due to a medical error.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

On August 30, 2007, the plaintiff underwent an operation - a stone was removed from the ureter. After the operation, the suture did not heal, a urinary fistula formed in the area of ​​the postoperative suture. Attempts to pass the catheter into the left ureter failed.

On September 13, 2007, a referral to a urologist was issued, after which he was hospitalized. The attending physician did not respond to complaints of severe pain. Within a month, he underwent anesthesia 3 times, the pain increased, but effective measures were not taken.

On October 12, 2007, he was discharged from the hospital with a referral to the Tomsk Regional Clinical Hospital for an examination, after which it was found that the kidney had increased in size.

On October 31, 2007, he was again hospitalized.

On 02.11.2007, when the ureter was isolated from the infiltrate, profuse bleeding occurred.

In the postoperative period, due to an atherosclerotic lesion, the vascular bed again failed, which led to the development of gangrene of the limb. As a result, amputation of the left lower limb at the top third. A month later, the left lower limb was re-amputated.

1,000,000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Industrial District Court of Khabarovsk dated January 21, 2015 in civil case No. , despite the indications for a caesarean section, the latter was not performed, which led to intrapartum fetal death.

880 734.5 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Seversky City Court of the Tomsk Region dated June 28, 2010 in civil case No. - the wife of a patient who died as a result of untimely medical care.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

In the first half of the day, the woman felt a deterioration in her health: dizziness, pain behind the sternum, a feeling of lack of air, malaise, accompanied by repeated and short-term loss of consciousness. Arriving paramedics after examining the patient refused to hospitalize her.

As the state of health was deteriorating, six hours later the ambulance was called again, after which the plaintiff's wife was taken to the hospital. After examination in the admissions department, hospitalization was again denied.

A short time after visiting the hospital, the woman lost consciousness and was urgently hospitalized in the intensive care unit, and an hour and a half later she died from pulmonary edema as a result of a pre-necratic stage of subendocardial myocardial infarction of the posterior machine of the left ventricle, caused by constricting coronary sclerosis of the mouth of the left coronary artery and hypertensive illness.

800 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Serovsky District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated February 12, 2014 in civil case No. 2-210 / 2014 with the Serov City Hospital No. 1 in favor of P.A.A. - the wife and five minor children of a patient who died during childbirth.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

The plaintiff's wife independently gave birth to the sixth child - a girl - weighing 3,600 grams, 52 centimeters tall. Five minutes after delivery, the patient developed massive bleeding, and therefore, an operation was performed: a manual examination of the uterine cavity and a rupture of the cervix with a transition to the lower uterine segment was detected. The patient was transferred to the operating room, venipuncture of two veins was performed, infusion of blood-substituting solutions was started, the operation was performed: laparotomy, extirpation of the uterus with left appendages.

The patient died due to massive blood loss and hemorrhagic shock. It was found that infusion-transfusion therapy was carried out correctly in terms of the total volume of blood replacement and blood components, but the volume of erythrocyte mass was insufficient.

700,000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Nazarovsky City Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory dated March 27, 2012 from the Nazarovskaya Central District Hospital in favor of L.N.P., whose newborn son died of hypoxia.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

During obstetrics, the doctors chose the wrong tactics: they did not expose the weakness of labor activity with a large fetus and a discrepancy in the size of the mother's pelvis, which led to asphyxia, which led to the death of the newborn.

700,000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Lesozavodsky District Court of the Primorsky Territory dated December 05, 2014 from the Lesozavodsk Central City Hospital in favor of T.A., whose child, due to a belated caesarean section, died a day after birth.

600 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Chernyshevsky District Court of the Zabaykalsky Territory dated January 21, 2010 in civil case No. 2-21/10 in favor of B.E.N., whose kidney was removed due to a medical error.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

After a caesarean section, the uterus with tubes and the left ovary was removed. During its implementation, the left ureter was damaged, which led to its obstruction and the development of secondary hydronephrosis of the left kidney. Nine months later, irreversible changes formed, which was an indication for nephrectomy, and the left kidney was removed from the plaintiff.

Note: By the cassation ruling of the Trans-Baikal Regional Court of June 8, 2010, the decision of the Chernyshevsky District Court of the Trans-Baikal Territory of January 21, 2010 was partially changed, 700,000 rubles were recovered in favor of the plaintiff.

500 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the Krasnozersky District Court of Novosibirsk recovered from the Krasnozersky Central District Hospital in favor of N., in respect of which the doctors systematically showed gross negligence during pregnancy, which led to the development of a long-term current severe preeclampsia, and how consequence, the birth of a dead child.

500 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Rodninsky District Court Altai Territory dated 12/15/2010 in a civil case with the MUSE "Rodinskaya CRH" in favor of D.A.Yu. - the mother of a newborn who died due to a medical error.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

In relation to the plaintiff, there were absolute indications for obstetrics through an operation - a caesarean section. However, the doctor did not diagnose an anomaly of labor, did not carry out the necessary medical intervention at the time of the deviation of labor from the normal course, deciding on the further conduct of labor in a natural way, as a result of which the child died from hypoxia.

300 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated May 16, 2012 in civil case No. N.S. Karpovich" in favor of I.E.A., after the operation of which the doctors forgot about abdominal cavity gauze napkin.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

On 05/06/2009, the plaintiff underwent a surgical operation: “removal of appendages on the left due to an ovarian cyst with torsion, histologically a serous cyst.”

On May 15, 2009, she was discharged from the hospital.

02/02/2010, when performing ultrasound of the abdominal cavity, a neoplasm on the right was diagnosed.

On February 12, 2010, the plaintiff was sent for hospitalization, which she refused.

April 19, 2010 I.E.A. in a planned manner hospitalized with a diagnosis of "cyst of the right ovary".

On April 20, 2010, during a laparoscopic operation, a gauze pad was found and removed.

300 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Sverdlovsk District Court of Krasnoyarsk dated March 29, 2013 in civil case No. 2-16/2013 (2-1010/2012;) matter of a newborn child who was harmed during childbirth.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

During childbirth, the plaintiff's wife gave birth to a live full-term boy weighing 4,030 grams, 53 centimeters tall (Apgar score 5 points). During the period of registration for pregnancy and childbirth, no complications were detected.

After the examination, a plan for childbirth was drawn up: to conduct childbirth conservatively, monitor the mechanism of childbirth, prevent bleeding, if obstetric pathology is layered in childbirth, taking into account the age of the primipara, timely delivery of the operation "caesarean section" on an emergency basis; no fetal anomalies were found.

After birth, the boy was diagnosed with type II respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), amniotic fluid aspiration, cerebral ischemia of the second degree.

It should be noted that two commission forensic medical examinations were carried out in the case.

The first was carried out by the Krasnoyarsk regional bureau of the SME, whose experts came to the following conclusions that the poor quality of medical services was expressed in “the failure to perform a vacuum extraction of the fetus when it was indicated.”

When conducting a repeated forensic medical examination in the Irkutsk Regional Bureau of the SME, the commission of experts came to different conclusions:

The existing diagnosis and prolonged pregnancy suggested additional instrumental studies to determine the weight of the fetus and the correspondence of the size of the pelvis of the pregnant woman to the size of the fetal head;
there are inconsistencies in the medical documents from the maternity hospital when determining the size of the pelvis - its various meanings: 26-28-32-20 cm and 25-27-30-21 cm;
] the tactics of childbirth did not take into account the need to clarify with the help of instrumental methods of studying the correspondence between the size of the pelvis of the pregnant woman, the intrauterine state;
high risk of a clinically narrow pelvis and intrauterine fetal hypoxia during delivery through the natural birth canal;
if a woman in labor has a large mass of the fetus in the presence of a generally uniformly narrowed pelvis of the 1st degree and a gestational age of 41 weeks, according to the totality of relative indications, with the written consent of the pregnant woman, delivery could be performed by caesarean section;
between the actions (defects) of doctors (an additional examination was not carried out to determine the weight of the fetus and the correspondence of the size of the pelvis of the pregnant woman to the size of the fetal head, an incorrectly chosen delivery plan and omissions during childbirth) and hypoxic-traumatic lesions of the central nervous system and cervical spine, received by the boy at birth ( rotational subluxation of the first cervical vertebra, hypoxia, aspiration syndrome) there is a causal relationship.

300 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the appeal ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dated June 25, 2014 in civil case No. 33-5990 / 2014 with the Rybinsk Regional Hospital in favor of the wife and young child of the patient who died due to a medical error.

300 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Nalchik City Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic dated April 28, 2015 in case No. 2-1885 / 2015 ~ M-1508 / 2015 in solidarity with the City Clinical Hospital No. 1, Nalchik and the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution “ Center for the Prevention and Control of AIDS and Infectious Diseases" of the Ministry of Health and Resorts of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic in favor of K.M., K.A. and K.D. - mothers and sons of a twenty-year-old patient who died on August 30, 2012 due to a “medical error”.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

Being at 32-33 weeks of pregnancy on 25.08. In 2012, the patient was taken to the emergency room of the maternity ward of Nalchik City Clinical Hospital No. 1 with complaints of nausea, double vomiting, cramping pains, in the lower abdomen and weakness. The obstetrician-gynecologist on duty did not organize timely hospitalization to the maternity hospital, did not organize and did not conduct obstetric-gynecological and resuscitation care, made an incorrect diagnosis and unlawfully transferred the patient to the infectious diseases department of the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "TsPB AIDS and IZ" M3 KBR.

At about 04:30 on the same day, the patient was taken to the infectious diseases department of the State Budgetary Healthcare Institution "CPB AIDS and IZ" M3 of the KBR with an incorrect diagnosis: "food poisoning, chronic pyelonephritis, remission.

The infectious disease doctor ordered a number of urgent laboratory tests, which were not carried out. The patient was treated for the disease indicated in the referral diagnosis of the Nalchik City Clinical Hospital No. 1. As a result of improper treatment, the patient died of eclampsia (preeclampsia in the second half of pregnancy), complicated by life-threatening conditions: HELLP syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, with the development of cerebral hemorrhage, with a breakthrough in the ventricular system.

As was later established by the experts, the patient needed immediate delivery, and not detoxification therapy associated with infusion of solutions, which were contraindicated for her disease.

Earlier, on a similar claim, the Nalchik City Court, by decision of September 22, 2014, recovered in favor of S.Zh. - the father of the deceased patient, compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 700,000 rubles.

Thus, in total, the family of the deceased girl received 1,000,000 rubles from medical organizations.

300 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Stavropol dated February 20, 2015 in civil case No. 2-12/15 with the Izobilnenskaya Central District Hospital in favor of a minor B..

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

On October 26, 2013, minor B. received an injury: “a closed precondylar fracture of the humerus on the left.” The child underwent surgery under general anesthesia, during which the joint was put in place, the patient was in the hospital trauma department of the hospital for five days. Control photographs were taken daily.

On the third day, the joint was displaced, but the doctor did not notice this, and instead of repositioning the bones, he discharged the child for outpatient treatment. After five weeks, the cast was removed, however, instead of a cure, a new diagnosis was made: “vegetative dysfunction syndrome, angiocerebral spasms, cerebrasthenic syndrome, neutrally fused supracondylar fracture of the humerus on the left, neuropathy of the median nerve.”

As a result of a “medical error”, the child developed a pronounced deformity of the left hand, and the fingers stopped working. long time the child was forced to receive additional treatment.

250 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by absentee decision of the Kansk City Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory dated April 10, 2015 in civil case No. 2-6 / 2015 with the KGBUZ "Kansky Interdistrict Maternity Hospital" in favor of A., who, as a result of an untimely caesarean section, was born a dead child, and the uterus with the right appendages and the left fallopian tube was also removed.

250 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated March 11, 2009 in civil case No. 2-27 / 2008 from the St. Petersburg public institution health care Clinical Infectious Diseases Hospital. S.P. Botkin" in favor of the patient, who, due to a "medical error" amputated the uterus with the right appendages and the left fallopian tube.

The following circumstances served as the basis for going to court and recovering compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused as a result of a “medical error”.

On July 14, 2003, the patient underwent a caesarean section, during which the dome of the caecum was punctured. Perforation led to the fact that the woman developed peritonitis, in the area of ​​​​the postoperative suture on the uterus, a fibrin plaque formed, an area of ​​​​purulent fusion of the suture in the center, acute bilateral salpingitis, cystic degeneration right ovary.

A medical error made it necessary to perform a supravaginal amputation of the uterus with the right appendages and the left fallopian tube on July 18, 2013.

200 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan dated 06/04/2013 in case No.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

On November 21, 2011, a twenty-five-year-old woman, according to the results of ultrasound diagnostics, was diagnosed with an intrauterine non-developing pregnancy for a period of 4-5 weeks with partial detachment of the placenta and the threat of termination of pregnancy. She was forced to terminate her pregnancy for medical reasons. The gynecologist of the antenatal clinic, without examining the presented results of ultrasound diagnostics, as well as the patient's condition, began the procedure for terminating the pregnancy. During the medical intervention, severe bleeding began, which was hardly stopped.

After that, she was transferred to the gynecological department, where they performed an operation to remove the uterus, referring to the fact that she had a cervical pregnancy.

200 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Nazarovsky City Court of the Krasnoyarsk Territory dated 04.04.2013 from the MBUZ "Central District Hospital" in Nazarovo in favor of M.M., whose reproductive organs were removed due to improper examination.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

December 19, 2011 M.M. went to the antenatal clinic of the Central District Hospital with complaints of pain in the lower abdomen. Based on the results of the examination, the gynecologist diagnosed cystitis and prescribed medication.

December 26, 2011 M.M. at the appointment, she again complained of incessant pain, continued to take the medications prescribed by the doctor, but her health worsened.

In connection with the holidays on January 5, 2012, M.M. complained of pain to the gynecological department, where she was examined, removed intrauterine device and sent home.

January 13, 2012 M.M. an ultrasound of the pelvic organs was performed and a tubo-ovarian mass was detected on the left.

Due to late diagnosis and untimely antibiotic therapy, the plaintiff was hospitalized in the gynecological department of the Central Regional Hospital, where she was operated on, removing the fallopian tubes and the left ovary.

According to the results of the forensic medical examination, the commission of experts came to the following conclusions:

“During the initial request for medical assistance on December 19, 2011, in the antenatal clinic, during the medical examination and provision of medical care to M.M., shortcomings were established, since it was necessary: ​​to appoint general analysis urine, detailed and biochemical analysis of blood, ultrasound of the genital organs; when confirming the diagnosis - hospitalize, remove the intrauterine device, prescribe conservative therapy with antibiotics; The treatment prescribed by M.M did not correspond to the disease diagnosed in her later in the form of a tubo-ovarian tumor and the severity of the process.

Due to the fact that on December 19, 2011, additional examination methods were not carried out, it is impossible to speak about the presence of a causal relationship between the organ-removing operation and the actions (inaction) of the antenatal clinic doctor, since it is impossible to assess what changes in the genitals were at the time of treatment December 19, 2011.

The inflammatory process in M.M. was chronic, it is not possible to speak about the prescription of the adhesive process, but any inflammatory (infectious) process can lead to an adhesive process in fallopian tubes and as a result - to infertility. The timely prescription of antibiotics and other anti-inflammatory drugs could stop the inflammatory process, which would not lead to the formation of purulent tumors, but it is impossible to fully assert the preservation of reproductive ability, since there are anatomical and functional changes in the genital organs.

200 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Serovsky District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated November 7, 2013 in civil case No. 2-2155/2013 with the Serov City Hospital No. 1 in favor of G.N. - the daughter of a patient who died as a result of the provision of unskilled and poor-quality medical care.

The grounds for going to court and recovering compensation for harm caused as a result of a “medical error” were the following circumstances:

The plaintiff's mother, feeling unwell: acute pain in the abdomen, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, repeatedly applied for emergency medical help. Only for the third time she was taken to the defendant's therapeutic department with a referral diagnosis: "cholelithiasis, hepatic colic." Upon admission, she was examined by a neurologist, who indicated a different diagnosis: "chronic pancreatitis in the acute stage."

A few days later, the patient, still feeling unwell, was finally examined by a surgeon, who diagnosed her with acute intestinal obstruction. On the same day, she was transferred to the surgical department, where during the operation she died as a result of cardiac arrest.

150 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it was recovered by the decision of the Kushvinsky City Court of the Sverdlovsk Region dated 08.08.2012 in civil case No. 2-457 with the Central City Hospital of Kushva in favor of P.S. - a patient in whom appendicitis was not recognized in a hospital, but was treated with paracetamol, nosh-poi and activated carbon, which led to the development of the disease: "acute gangrenous-perforative appendicitis, diffuse fibro-purulent peritonitis."

150 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Sovetsky District Court of Omsk dated October 20, 2014 in civil case No. 2-1459/14 s budget institution health care institution of the Omsk region "City Hospital No. 6", the Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Omsk Region "Clinical Maternity Hospital No. 6" and the Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Omsk Region "Clinical Maternity Hospital No. 1" in favor of T.I.N., who, due to improper provision of medical assistance during pregnancy, the uterus and right eye were removed.

120 000 rubles on account of compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Ust-Ilimsk City Court of the Irkutsk Region dated April 29, 2011 in civil case No. 2-941 / 2011 with the Municipal Hospital No. 1 City Hospital in favor of M.O.V. and M.S.I. - the parents of a minor girl, who was diagnosed with BCG osteitis untimely by doctors, treated the disease incorrectly, which contributed to the progression of bone tuberculosis and led to a pathological fracture of the upper third of the tibia.

100 000 rubles in compensation for non-pecuniary damage recovered by the decision of the Ust-Ilimsk city court of the Irkutsk region dated May 27, 2010 in civil case No. 2-1 / 2010 with the City Hospital No. 1 in favor of the minor M.M.S. Tuberculosis was detected late

The Shilkinsky District Court considered a civil case based on a lawsuit filed by an inter-district prosecutor to recover moral damages in the amount of one million rubles from the Shilkinskaya Central District Hospital state health institution in favor of the mother of a child who died during childbirth and satisfied the prosecutor’s claims in full.
It was established that on March 12, 2012, the woman was admitted to the maternity ward of the hospital with minor abdominal pain. Nine days later she went into labor regularly and a dead boy was born with a single tight entanglement of the umbilical cord around his neck. The resuscitation measures taken did not give any result. After that, the woman in labor experienced stress, moral suffering, on a nervous basis she developed a stomach disease, she received psychological trauma and still experiences strong emotional excitement at the mention of what happened.
As a result of the prosecutor's check, it was revealed that the woman, from the moment she was registered for pregnancy and childbirth, regularly visited a medical institution, took a responsible attitude to her health, and the birth of a child was desirable for her. When taking delivery, the patient revealed defects in the management of pregnancy and childbirth in the form of poor-quality monitoring of the intrauterine state of the fetus. In the maternity ward, the obstetrician-gynecologist did not check the condition of the fetus (ultrasound, ultrasound), the fetal CTG was not deciphered, and the diagnosis of chronic intrauterine fetal hypoxia was not made. Without taking into account the condition of the child, an intensive preparation of the woman's birth canal was started. This is confirmed by the protocol of the medical control commission of the Shilkinskaya Central District Hospital drawn up after the incident, as well as the results of the examination, which established that the cause of the death of the child was intrauterine hypoxia noted during childbirth. According to the pathoanatomical conclusion, the suffering of the fetus began long before his birth, death occurred at least three hours before the birth, although the doctor claimed that 15 minutes before the birth she listened to his heartbeat.
According to Kristina Kharaburova, an assistant to the Shilkinsky inter-district prosecutor, at the request of the prosecutor's office, an additional examination was carried out, which established that a causal relationship is seen between the defects in the provision of medical care by the doctor in the maternity ward and the stillbirth of the child. Based on the results of the procedural check, the investigation repeatedly made decisions to refuse to initiate a criminal case, the last of which was dated March 6, 2013. On April 24, 2012, by order of the head physician of the Shilkinskaya CRH, the obstetrician-gynecologist was brought to disciplinary responsibility (strict reprimand) and transferred to an outpatient appointment.
The court concluded that the prosecutor provided sufficient evidence of the guilt of the employees of the Shilkinskaya Central District Hospital, in particular the obstetrician-gynecologist, in providing poor-quality medical care to the patient, his claims are legitimate and justified.
Prosecutor's office
Trans-Baikal Territory

DECISION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

On December 25, 2015, the Angarsk City Court of the Irkutsk Region, composed of the presiding judge Kurkutova E.A., with the participation of senior assistant prosecutor L, with secretary G, considered in open court a civil case No. to the health care institution "Angarsk Perinatal Center" for compensation for moral damages,

SET UP:

The plaintiff, having applied to the court with a claim against the Regional State Autonomous Healthcare Institution “Angarsk Perinatal Center” (hereinafter referred to as OGAUZ APC) for compensation for non-pecuniary damage, indicated that **. She was admitted to the Department of Obstetric Pathology of Pregnancy by the doctor of the antenatal clinic with a diagnosis of pregnancy at 40-41 weeks, postmaturity, with signs of fetal hyopioxia according to carditocogram (CTG). The lead doctor was P, who examined her and made a treatment plan, she was prescribed the drug mifepristone and the date of delivery is scheduled for ** After the second dose of the drug, **. She had a stomach ache in the evening. She complained about this to doctor P in the morning **., she was put on painkillers, CTG was performed twice, which showed a decrease in the fetal heart rate. She asked for a caesarean section because the pain in her stomach was unbearable. However, P argued that this pain usually occurs in women before childbirth, there is no indication for a caesarean section. Later, ** her amniotic sac was pierced and an emergency caesarean section was scheduled, but the baby was removed with no signs of life. In the course of an audit conducted by the Territorial Administration of the Ministry of Health of the Irkutsk Region, it was found that the operation was a caesarean section **. performed belatedly with antenatal fetal death, this case was preventable. Violations of the quality of medical care were also established, it was indicated that she needed urgent obstetric care, which was not done. He believes that the death of the child was the result of not providing her with quality medical care. The plaintiff connects the amount of moral damage caused by the fact that, as a result of poor-quality medical care, she lost the child that the whole family was waiting for. During pregnancy, she followed all the prescriptions of doctors. The death of a child caused her moral and moral suffering associated with the pain of loss. In addition, after the caesarean section, she again required a medical procedure in the form of a water sanitation hysteroscopy, which was the result of a poorly performed caesarean section. She again had to experience physical pain and moral suffering.

In this connection, I asked to recover from the defendant in compensation for non-pecuniary damage 800,000 rubles.

At the hearing, the plaintiff did not appear, submitted a statement on the consideration of the case in her absence.

At the hearing, the representative of the defendant OGAUZ "Angarsk Perinatal Center" A, by proxy, did not recognize the claim, supported written objections, according to which the defendant believes that faults, defects in the provision of medical care during diagnostic observation during pregnancy, as well as during obstetric care in there is no action (or inaction) of the medical personnel of the OGAZ APC, as well as a causal relationship with the consequences indicated in the claim. The plaintiff was registered at the dispensary in the defendant's antenatal clinic from 17 weeks of pregnancy; during the observation period she visited the doctor 12 times, she was prescribed the necessary diagnostic procedures. During the dispensary observation, the plaintiff neglected the doctor's prescriptions: she did not perform an electrocardiogram, did not appear for the first ultrasound, a referral for prenatal hospitalization was issued ** within 38 weeks, which the plaintiff ignored. ** the plaintiff was issued a referral for hospitalization, but the patient was admitted to the obstetric hospital only ** with a diagnosis of “Pregnancy 40-41 weeks. The beginning of the overgrowth. weighed down obstetric history". The plaintiff underwent laboratory and clinical examination. Taking into account the lack of biological readiness for childbirth and the absence of contraindications, preparation for childbirth with mifepristone 200 mg No. **. was examined to assess the effectiveness of labor preparation, a decision was made to induce labor with prostaglandins ** ** SCC was recorded from 9-54 to 11-00, according to the result (insufficient number of accelerations), it was decided to repeat the recording in dynamics. From 15-13 to 16-45 continuous CTG monitoring was carried out - regarded as a dubious type. The plaintiff was transferred to the maternity ward. At 17-15 ** the plaintiff underwent an amniotomy to assess the nature of the amniotic fluid - about 1000 ml of light green water was obtained. The diagnosis was made: Intrauterine fetal hypoxia. Polyhydramnios. Large fruit. Amniotomy. An emergency caesarean section was performed, at 17-40 the dead fetus was removed. On the second day after the operation, the plaintiff had a rise in temperature to 38 degrees, inflammatory changes in the KLA. Diagnosed with endometritis. Started antibiotic therapy. Discharged in a satisfactory condition. Final diagnosis: Pregnancy 40-41 weeks. Urgent operative delivery of a large fetus. Premature detachment of a normally located placenta. Polyhydramnios. Laparotomy. Cesarean section according to Derfler. Anemia of moderate severity. The defendant believes that the plaintiff did not have indications for a caesarean section upon admission to the hospital. The appointment of mifepristone was justified, in accordance with the instructions for use, given the clinical situation. The cause of antenatal fetal death in the plaintiff was acute intrauterine fetal hypoxia as a result of aggravation of chronic placental insufficiency by acute decompensation as a result of partial detachment of a normally located placenta. The plaintiff's detachment of a normally located placenta manifested itself as a non-specific symptom - acute fetal hypoxia. It is extremely difficult to predict the occurrence of labor complications in the form of placental abruption, and in this case, given the absence of specific clinical signs, it is almost impossible.

At the hearing third person P did not appear, duly notified.

The court after listening to the explanations of the participants in the process, having studied the case file, the materials of the check KRSP No. from **. according to A’s statement about the unprofessional actions of doctors that caused the death of his child, having examined the evidence presented in the case, medical documents, having heard the conclusion of the senior assistant prosecutor L, acting on the basis of the rights of office, who believed that the claims for the recovery of moral damage are subject to satisfaction in the amount, determined by the court, comes to the following.

From the history of childbirth No. OGAUZ "Angarsk Perinatal Center", it follows that R ** at 10-25 hours was admitted to the department of obstetric pathology of pregnancy of the OGAUZ APC with a diagnosis: "Pregnancy 40-41 weeks, overmaturity, with signs of fetal hypoxia according to CTG" . Examined by doctor P, R was prescribed mifepristone.

** Dopplerometry was performed.

** a joint examination was carried out with the head of the department after ultrasound and CTG.

** from 9-25 to 9-50 CTG - excessively active fetal movement is recorded - the test is doubtful. CTG - from 11-56 to 12-20 - the test is doubtful. CTG - from 18-00 to 18-50 - the test is doubtful.

** preparation of the birth canal with mifepristone continues.

** P examined together with the head of the department, a decision was made to conduct a programmed birth **.

** before 15-20 hours, the assessment of the condition of the fetus is not carried out.

** CTG recording from 15-20 to 16-40, the type of cardiogram from 15-20 is pathological, the rhythm is monotonous, the basal heart rate of the fetus decreases by 15-40 to 100 beats per minute.

** at 17-15 o'clock transferred from the OAPB to the operating room, examined at 17-30 in the operating room, caesarean section started at 17-39 o'clock, cesarean section was performed in case of antenatal fetal death, delivery at 17-40 o'clock with a dead fetus .

By court ruling dated ** at the request of the representatives of the parties, in order to establish the cause of death of the fetus R, the quality of medical care R, the presence of a causal relationship with the death of the fetus of the child of the actions (inaction) of the employees of the Angarsk Perinatal Center, a forensic medical examination, which was entrusted to the Irkutsk Regional Bureau of Forensic Medical Examination.

From the conclusion of the examination No. from **. it follows that the cause of fetal death P ** was intrauterine hypoxia resulting from an acute violation of the uteroplacental circulation, as evidenced by the results of CTG and Doppler sonography, amniotic fluid staining with meconium and pathological autopsy data. Premature detachment of a normally located placenta could be the decisive factor that led to the death of the fetus.

Cardiotocography (CTG) is one of the methods for determining the intrauterine state of the fetus, therefore, when assessing the clinical situation and deciding on the choice of the method of delivery, it is necessary to take into account the totality of all clinical data, including CTG data.

According to CTG, starting from 15-30 **, the fetus had bradycardia with a heart rate of less than 120 beats per minute (the most unfavorable sign of hypoxia), which required immediate measures to improve the condition of the fetus (changing the position of the body of the woman in labor, infusion of 0.9% sodium chloride solution and mask inhalation of oxygen). Against the backdrop of these events, all possible methods studies to assess the condition of the fetus and resolve the issue of delivery. The presence of signs of a significant violation of the uteroplacental circulation according to Doppler sonography, staining of amniotic fluid with meconium according to amnioscopy data made it possible to reasonably diagnose the presence of intrauterine fetal hypoxia, which is an indication for emergency delivery, in this case surgical, by caesarean section.

There were shortcomings in the actions of the medical staff of the OGAZ APC in the provision of medical care R When planning the management of childbirth through the birth canal, taking into account the probable over-pregnancy, a large fetus and insufficient biological readiness for childbirth (insufficient cervical maturity), no additional measures were taken to assess prenatal state of the fetus (amnioscopy, repeated Doppler sonography was not performed) and timely operative delivery. Notes on the provision of medical care R in postpartum period** to ** no.

Delivery tactics R was chosen incorrectly. Considering the probable prolongation of pregnancy, large fruit, lack of biological readiness for childbirth due to the state of the cervix and the state of the fetus according to CTG, the pregnant woman needed a planned operative delivery in more early dates.

Shortcomings in the diagnosis, monitoring and provision of medical care R contributed to the development of decompensated disorders of the uteroplacental circulation, progressive intrauterine hypoxia and therefore are in a causal relationship with intrauterine fetal death.

Antenatal fetal death P is conditionally preventable, since a timely and correct interpretation of the data obtained during the diagnosis, along with the use of additional examination methods, would make it possible to give a correct assessment of the severity of the fetal condition and promptly (earlier) to perform operative delivery by caesarean section.

The court has no reason not to trust the conclusion of the experts. The expert opinion does not contain contradictions in the conclusions, it was made on the basis of a court ruling by qualified experts warned about criminal liability under Art. for giving a knowingly false conclusion. All medical documents of the plaintiff were presented to the experts to give an opinion.

The conclusions of the experts are objectively confirmed by the medical documents examined at the court session, as well as other evidence presented in the case file: the individual card of the pregnant woman and the puerperal No.; history of childbirth No.; the history of the development of the newborn No.; the protocol of pathoanatomical examination of the fetus No. from **; inpatient card No.; act of inspection of the Ministry of Health in the Irkutsk region dated ** No.; decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case dated **

In accordance with Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as harm caused to the property of a legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm. By law, the obligation to compensate for harm may be assigned to a person who is not the tortfeasor. The person who caused harm is exempted from compensation for harm if he proves that the harm was caused through no fault of his.

In accordance with Art. a legal entity or a citizen compensates for the harm caused by its employee in the performance of labor duties.

In accordance with Art. RF everyone has the right to health care and medical care. Medical care in state and municipal health care institutions is provided to citizens free of charge at the expense of the relevant budget, insurance premiums, and other revenues.

In accordance with clause 9 of part 5 of article 19 of the Federal Law of November 21, 2011 N 323-FZ "On the basics of protecting the health of citizens in Russian Federation The patient has the right to compensation for harm caused to health during the provision of medical care to him.

By virtue of parts 2, 3 of Article 98 of the said Federal Law, medical organizations, medical workers and pharmaceutical workers are liable in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation for violating rights in the field of health care, causing harm to life and (or) health when providing medical care to citizens. The harm caused to the life and (or) health of citizens in the course of providing them with medical care is compensated by medical organizations in the amount and in the manner established by the legislation of the Russian Federation.

At the court session, it was established that the employees of the Angarsk Perinatal Center committed shortcomings in the diagnosis, monitoring and provision of medical care R, which are in a causal relationship with the plaintiff's fetal death, namely, the tactics of delivery was incorrectly chosen, no additional measures were taken to assess intrauterine state of the fetus and timely operative delivery.

At the same time, civil law provides for the presumption of guilt of the harm-doer: the person who caused the harm is released from the obligation to compensate him if he proves that the harm was caused through no fault of his (Article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in paragraph 11 of Resolution No. 1 of January 26, 2010 "On the application by the courts of civil legislation governing relations on obligations resulting from infliction of harm to the life or health of a citizen" explained that the presumption of guilt of the tortfeasor provided for in the article of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation implies that the evidence of the absence of his guilt must be presented by the defendant himself.

Evidence of the lack of guilt of the defendant's employees in the death of the fetus R was not presented to the court.

The plaintiff asks to recover from the defendant OGAUZ "Angarsk Perinatal Center" compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 800,000 rubles.

Evaluating the plaintiff's arguments in this part of the requirements, the court comes to the following.

In accordance with Art. of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the grounds and amount of compensation to a citizen for non-pecuniary damage are determined by the rules provided for by Chapter and Art. Civil Code.

According to Art. If a citizen has suffered moral harm (moral or physical suffering) by actions that violate his personal non-property rights, or encroach on non-material benefits belonging to the citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the violator the obligation of monetary compensation for moral damage.

As stated in Art. the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court, depending on the nature of the physical or moral suffering caused to the victim, as well as the degree of guilt of the tortfeasor, when guilt is the basis for compensation for harm. When determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage, the principles of reasonableness and fairness must be taken into account. The nature of the physical and moral suffering is assessed by the court, taking into account the actual circumstances under which the moral harm was inflicted, and individual features victim.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims the right of everyone to life (Article 3). The obligation to establish such a standard of living as is necessary to maintain the health of himself and his family, and to ensure in the event of illness, disability or other loss of livelihood due to circumstances beyond his control, is provided for in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 11 of the International Covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.

The provisions of these international acts are also reflected in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The right to life and health care is one of the universally recognized, fundamental, inalienable human rights and freedoms subject to state protection; The Russian Federation is a social state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life for a person (articles and, part 1 of the article, article of the Russian Federation).

The Court considers that the pre-natal death of the child's fetus caused non-pecuniary damage, expressed in moral and physical suffering.

From the explanations of the representative of the plaintiff, it follows that R was very upset by the loss of a child who was desired. The death of the child caused her moral suffering in connection with his loss through no fault of hers, since she followed all the prescriptions of the doctors; she experienced physical pain for several days, ** due to untimely delivery by the employees of the Angarsk Perinatal Center.

In paragraph 32 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 01.26.2010. No. it is stated that given that the infliction of harm to the life or health of a citizen detracts from his personal intangible benefits, entails physical or moral suffering, the victim, along with compensation for the property damage caused to him, has the right to compensation for moral damage, provided that the tortfeasor is guilty. At the same time, the court should keep in mind that since the victim in connection with the infliction of harm to his health in all cases experiences physical or moral suffering, the fact of causing him moral harm is assumed. In this case, only the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage is subject to establishment.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of the Decree of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 20.12.1994. No. “Some Issues of the Application of Legislation on Compensation for Moral Damage” moral harm, in particular, may consist in moral feelings in connection with the loss of relatives, the inability to continue active public life, loss of employment, disclosure of family, medical secrets, dissemination of untrue information discrediting the honor, dignity or business reputation of a citizen, temporary restriction or deprivation of any rights, physical pain associated with injury, other damage to health or in connection with a disease suffered as a result of moral suffering, etc.

In accordance with Art. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is carried out in cash.

The amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court, depending on the nature of the physical and moral suffering caused to the victim, as well as the degree of guilt of the tortfeasor in cases where guilt is the basis for compensation for harm. When determining the amount of compensation for harm, the requirements of reasonableness and fairness must be taken into account.

The nature of physical and moral suffering is assessed by the court, taking into account the actual circumstances under which the moral harm was inflicted, and the individual characteristics of the victim.

The court considers the claim for compensation for moral damage to be satisfied. In determining the amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damage to be recovered in favor of the plaintiff, the court takes into account that the plaintiff was registered in connection with pregnancy at the Angarsk Perinatal Center Women's Clinic, her guilt in the death of the child was not established, the child died in the womb due to poor quality medical care and untimely delivery by the employees of the Angarsk Perinatal Center.

The argument that the defendant provided poor-quality medical care to the plaintiff in the period after childbirth with **, as a result of which she experienced physical suffering, did not find its confirmation, was not supported by evidence.

Given the degree of physical and moral suffering of the plaintiff described above, based on the requirements of reasonableness and justice, taking into account that human suffering cannot be assessed in monetary terms, compensation for non-pecuniary damage is aimed at smoothing out as much as possible the negative changes in the mental sphere of the individual associated with loss of a loved one, considers it possible to recover in favor of the plaintiff from the defendant in compensation for non-pecuniary damage 450 000 RUB.

By virtue of Art. , from the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, court costs for payment for forensic examination in the amount of 18710.47 rubles, which is confirmed by the payment receipt.

In accordance with Article.Article. , from the defendant to the local budget is subject to collection of state duty size 300 RUB. for non-property claims.

Based on the above, guided by art. Art. - Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, court

I DECIDED:

The claims of R against the Regional State Autonomous Healthcare Institution "Angarsk Perinatal Center" for compensation for moral damage - to be satisfied.

To collect in favor of R from the Regional State Autonomous Healthcare Institution "Angarsk Perinatal Center" in compensation for moral damage 450,000 rubles, the cost of an examination in the amount of 18,710.47 rubles.

Collect from the Regional State Autonomous Healthcare Institution "Angara Perinatal Center" a state duty to the local budget in the amount of 300 rubles.

The decision can be appealed on appeal to the Irkutsk Regional Court through the Angarsk City Court within a month from the date of production of the reasoned decision, which will be made on January 14, 2016.

WORD TO YOUNG SCIENTISTS

E. D. KOLOCHOKOV

THE PROBLEM OF QUALIFYING CRIMES RELATED
WITH INTRANATAL FETUS DEATH

The question of the moment of the beginning of the criminal law protection of human life in Russian legislation has not been resolved so far, which gives rise to a large number of problems. In particular, the question of qualifying crimes related to intranatal (intrauterine) fetal death remains open.

In medical practice, it is not uncommon for a healthy and viable fetus to die throughout the entire period of pregnancy in the birth canal of a woman in labor as a result of the actions or inaction of doctors taking delivery, for example, as a result of hypoxia (oxygen starvation). At the same time, under such circumstances, harm to the health of the mother may not be caused at all.

Is it possible to talk about the presence in the actions of an obstetrician-gynecologist of any corpus delicti in a situation where he must and can foresee and prevent intrauterine death of the fetus, but as a result of frivolity or negligence causes the death of the fetus by his actions or inaction, without causing harm maternal health?

It is generally accepted that the integrity and safety of the fetus is protected indirectly by criminal law, through increased liability for the murder of a woman who is obviously pregnant for the perpetrator, and through the recognition of abortion as a consequence in the form of grievous bodily harm. However, does the concept of “termination of pregnancy” include intrapartum fetal death? The logical interpretation of paragraph 6.7 of the order of the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation dated April 24, 2008 No. 194n “On approval of medical criteria for determining the severity of harm caused to human health” allows us to say that the concepts of “pregnancy” and “childbirth” are different in their content and do not overlap: termination of pregnancy, in particular, can be caused by preterm birth. All this leads us to the conclusion that in the actions of the doctor in the situation described above there is no corpus delicti under Part 2 of Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since there was no abortion, the death of the fetus occurred already in the process of childbirth, no harm was caused to the health of the woman in labor.

Is it possible to qualify the actions of a doctor as a crime against life, i.e. careless infliction of death on a child being born? According to the opinion widespread in modern Russian criminal law doctrine, the moment of the beginning of the criminal law protection of a person’s life is associated with the moment of birth (at least cutting through any part of the child’s body from the mother’s body). If the child died after the onset of labor, but even before partial expulsion from the birth canal, i.e., the child’s independent physiological life has not yet begun, there is also no

corpus delicti, under Part. 2 Article. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Does this mean that a child who is born is completely excluded from criminal legal protection? M. Bavsun and P. Popov attempt to justify the possibility of qualifying such acts under articles providing for liability for causing grievous bodily harm, saying that “birth is the final stage of pregnancy, which does not allow them to be attributed to an independent process that does not depend on pregnancy » . In their opinion, "an alternative to such a decision can only be the complete exclusion of criminal liability, but not qualification under other articles of the Criminal Code." A. A. Snigirev adheres to a different point of view, who believes that the beginning of childbirth should be recognized as the end of pregnancy, since the first is the process of fetal development in the body, and the second is the process of expulsion of the fetus from the body, from which he concludes that physiological criteria are different the course of these processes and the impossibility of qualifying the death of the fetus in the womb according to Art. 111 and 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The question of the relationship between the concepts of "pregnancy" and "childbirth" in modern medicine is also not unambiguous. So, N. Bogoyavlensky, in an article on normal human pregnancy in the Great Medical Encyclopedia, writes the following: “The end of pregnancy is timed to the end, and not to the beginning of childbirth, since it is not always easy to accurately catch the onset of childbirth due to the fact that pregnancy can gradually and completely imperceptibly go into birth. On the contrary, the end of labor is precisely determined by the time of discharge of the placenta. In the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Medical Terms, edited by B. V. Petrovsky, on the contrary, pregnancy is considered only as a process of fetal development from a fertilized egg. Thus, the admissibility of using such a controversial concept - "pregnancy" - in determining the severity of harm caused to human health, is questionable.

In our opinion, a direct indication in Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the commission of a crime during childbirth allows us to say that the legislator does not exclude the possibility of criminal liability for causing the death of a child even before its complete or even partial expulsion from the womb. For all its ambiguity, the sign of the objective side of the corpus delicti under Art. 106 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, - "during childbirth" - cannot be ignored when determining the moment of the beginning of the criminal law protection of a person's life. Thus, in our opinion, in the actions of the doctor in the above example there is a crime under Part 2 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and intrapartum fetal death should be equated in its criminal legal consequences with the death of a person.