Verdict money for dentures may also be due without signature

BGH makes exception in faithful behavior
Karlsruhe (jur). Patients must pay a high proportion of their own dental treatment in individual cases, even if they have not signed the treatment contract. According to a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe, published on Tuesday, 29 November 2016, such an exception applies if the patient wished the treatment and the lack of signature in practice was only slightly negligent (Az. III ZR 286/15).

In the specific case, the patient required dental prosthetic services. The dentist discussed with her two treatment options and gave the patient according to two treatment and cost plans including treatment contract home. The first plan provided only medically necessary services without own contribution. The second considered several aesthetic benefits desired by the patient, especially ceramic veneers; the estimated own contribution should amount to 6,840 euros.

(Image: Kzenon / fotolia.com)

The patient only submitted the expensive plan to her health insurance company and returned it to practice approved. She had not signed the enclosed treatment contract, which accidentally escaped the practice employees.

The dentist treated according to the second plan; the own contribution was ultimately at 3,860 euros. Even after several reminders, the patient did not pay. After all, she did not sign the treatment contract.

However, as the BGH decided, they still have to pay the bill.

Although the judges emphasized the special purpose of a cure and cost plan. This should reliably inform about the expected costs and keep patients from a hasty fee agreement. Dentists may therefore rely on "unsolicited management" in urgent emergencies if they start a treatment without a signature. Exceptions to the applicable formalities are only permitted by way of exception.

In the specific case, the BGH saw such an exception. The patient could not invoke the missing signature. In doing so, she breaks loyalty. According to the undisputed findings of the District Court of Wuppertal, the patient had received comprehensive advice and had then deliberately opted for the more expensive treatment. Accordingly, they had only this health and cost plan approved by their health insurance and then submitted in practice. Only after the conclusion of the treatment she had invoked the non-compliance of the written form.

This was a "serious breach of the duty of loyalty", the BGH emphasized in its judgment of 3 November 2016, now published in writing. Mwo