^{<thead id="s3m3o"></thead>}

Society

Beijing upholds 'illegal medical practice' case

(Xinhua)
Updated: 2010-04-29 15:31

Large Medium Small

BEIJING - A Beijing higher court Wednesday turned down appeals by both the plaintiffs and the defendant and upheld the ruling made by a lower court over the controversial "illegal medical treatment" case.

The Beijing Higher People's Court heard that Xiong Zhuowei, a member of the faculty with the Beijing University, died of pulmonary failure after undergoing spinal surgery at the age of 49 January 31, 2006.

One plaintiff, Wang Jianguo, husband of the victim Xiong Zhuowei, filed a lawsuit at Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court in September 2007 against the prestigious Beijing University First Hospital where Xiong was treated, claiming his wife Xiong Zhuowei died during "illegal medical treatment" by the hospital that involved uncertificated medical staff.

Wang was joined by Guan Huiying, his mother-in-law. The two plaintiffs also demanded a hefty sum of more than 5.42 million yuan (about $797,059) in compensation.

The Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court issued a first-instance ruling in July last year that the hospital had negligent behaviors during the treatment of Xiong and should pay 750,000 yuan to family members of the victim in compensation.

Both the plaintiffs, Wang and Guan, and the defendant, Beijing University First Hospital, appealed the case upon receiving the ruling from the first-instance trial produced by Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court.

Wang and Guan insisted that the sum of compensation was too low and the medical treatment should be recognized as "illegal." The hospital also ?claimed in appealing the case that certain evidences used for reaching the first stance ruling were not "true".

The Beijing Higher People's Court said it had carefully reviewed the ?litigation document concerning death of Xiong and found nothing wrong with the lower court's handling of Xiong's case.

The higher court concluded that the ruling handed down by the lower court was right and appropriate and therefore should be upheld.