The steel nail fell into the marrow cavity.
In July 2006, the plaintiff Sun was injured in a traffic accident and went to a hospital of the defendant for treatment. During the internal fixation of Sun's fracture, a steel nail fell into Sun's medullary cavity.
After the operation, Sun sometimes feels a little uncomfortable, especially when it rains on cloudy days, so he goes to the hospital for X-ray and CT examination. It was found that the steel nail fell into the medullary cavity during the hospital operation. Sun immediately went to the hospital to argue and ask him to take responsibility.
On April 25, 2008, Sun reached an agreement with the defendant hospital. According to the agreement, when Sun proposed the hospital to operate on him, the rivet angle deviated and fell off, which led to his slow recovery and left sequelae. The hospital believes that the operation process and results performed by Sun meet the medical standards. The two sides have now formed a * * * understanding that there is no medical accident in Sun's operation in the hospital; The hospital voluntarily compensated Sun RMB2,000; The above disputes between the two parties shall be handled in one lump sum in this agreement. This agreement is an irrevocable civil agreement between both parties. The hospital and Sun signed the agreement respectively, and Wang, the lawyer entrusted by Sun, also signed the agreement as a witness.
June 2008165438+1October 6, 2008, another hospital in Hai 'an County performed the second operation for Sun, and recorded that "there was an isolated screw in the medullary cavity, telling the patient's family that the patient insisted on not taking out the screw."
Regret leads to litigation.
Since then, Sun believes that the losses compensated by the defendant's hospital are not enough to make up for their losses, especially the physical and mental injuries. On March 27th, 2009, Sun filed a lawsuit against the defendant's hospital.
Sun Mou, the plaintiff, claimed that a small gong fell into the bone marrow cavity when the defendant's hospital performed an internal fixation operation on my fracture. In the agreement reached between the two parties on the above accident, the defendant hospital only compensated me 2000 yuan. Obviously unfair, I hereby request the court to cancel the agreement signed between me and the defendant hospital on April 25th, 2008.
The defendant's hospital argued that the agreement signed by the original and the defendant on April 25th, 2008 was the expression of the true meaning of both parties, and it had been fulfilled, so there was no reason to cancel it, and requested to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.
After trial, the People's Court of Hai 'an County, Jiangsu Province held that on April 25, 2008, the plaintiff Sun Mou entrusted a lawyer to negotiate with the defendant's hospital because of the problems left over by his bone injury treatment and judicial appraisal in the defendant's hospital, and reached an agreement. Sun Mou, the plaintiff, signed the agreement, and confirmed that the lawyer he hired also signed the agreement as a witness, and the defendant hospital also fulfilled relevant obligations according to the agreement. The above behavior did not violate the law. Now the plaintiff Sun sued for revoking the agreement, but failed to provide evidence to prove that there were revocable reasons for the agreement. Therefore, according to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Provisions of the People's Court on the Trial of Evidence in Civil Litigation, the plaintiff Sun's claim was rejected.
The second instance upheld the original judgment.
After the judgment of the first instance, Sun refused to accept it and appealed to Nantong Intermediate People's Court.
The appellant Sun appealed that the staff of the hospital, as professional medical personnel, should know that the steel nail fell into the medullary cavity during and after the operation, but they always concealed this fact. I didn't know this fact until the second operation in June 2008. So the hospital constitutes fraud, and the agreement I signed with the hospital on April 25, 2008 is a revocable contract. Request the court of second instance to revoke the original judgment and change the judgment according to law.
The hospital replied that when the two sides reached an agreement, Sun knew that the steel nail had fallen into the medullary cavity and entrusted a lawyer to sign an agreement with the hospital. This agreement is the true intention of both parties, and there is no fraud or obvious unfairness. Request the court of second instance to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
After hearing the case, Nantong Intermediate People's Court held that Sun clearly pointed out the angle deviation and falling of the rivet when concluding the agreement, indicating that he knew the fact that the steel nail fell, and Wang, the lawyer entrusted by him, also signed the agreement as a witness, so the agreement should be a voluntary agreement reached by both parties during the operation in July 2006. Sun said that there was no factual basis for hospital fraud. Sun refused to take the steel nail during the second operation, and the losses caused by it should be at his own risk. To sum up, the original judgment found the facts clear and the applicable law was correct. Therefore, according to Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.
Comments: Sun Mou, the plaintiff in this case, put forward two reasons for revocation: obviously unfair and fraud. Article 59 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "One party has the right to request the people's court or the arbitration organ to modify or cancel the following civil acts: (1) the actor has a major misunderstanding of the content of the act; (2) Obviously unfair. The revoked civil act is invalid from the beginning of the act. " Paragraph 1 of Article 54 of the Contract Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates: "One party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to modify or cancel the following contracts: (1) contracts concluded due to gross misunderstanding; (2) obviously unfair at the time of conclusion of the contract. " Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Contract Law defines some invalid situations stipulated in the General Principles of Civil Law as changeable and revocable situations. This clause stipulates: "If one party makes the other party conclude a contract against its true meaning by means of fraud, coercion or taking advantage of the danger of others, the injured party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to change or cancel it. "So,
Obviously unfair and fraud are revocable circumstances stipulated by law. Whether the litigation agreement in this case can be revoked depends on whether it constitutes one of these two situations.
Regarding fraud, Article 68 of the Opinions of the People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (for Trial Implementation) stipulates: "If one party intentionally informs the other party of false information, or intentionally conceals the true information to induce the other party to make false statements, it can be considered as fraud." It is not difficult to see from this provision that fraud has two elements: 1, where one party deliberately adopts false or concealed means; 2. The other party made a wrong expression of meaning under the temptation of false information. Sun, the plaintiff in this case, clearly pointed out the angle deviation and falling of the rivet when concluding the agreement, indicating that he knew the fact that the steel nail fell, and the hospital did not take any measures to conceal the existence of the fact, so it could not constitute fraud.
As for obviously unfair, Article 72 of the Opinions of the People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) (Trial) stipulates: "If one party takes advantage of the other party's inexperience and the rights and obligations of both parties obviously violate the principles of fairness and equal compensation, it can be recognized as obviously unfair." Sun Mou, the plaintiff in this case, has no evidence to prove the specific loss or the expansion of the loss, and entrusts a lawyer with professional level to handle the dispute. It is difficult to prove that the hospital took advantage of its advantages, so it is difficult to form obvious unfairness.
In fact, the most fundamental principle in civil litigation is the principle of party autonomy. The parties have the right to dispose of their own rights, and the choice of compensation standard is also the embodiment of exercising the right to dispose. As long as there is no fraud and obvious loss in the disposal process, the relevant agreement should not be easily revoked.
(Author: People's Court of Hai 'an County, Jiangsu Province)