|
Regarding Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter shortened as the CPA) implemented on the 13th of January 1994, Article 7 stated: “(Paragraph 1) Traders engaging in designing, producing or manufacturing of goods or in the provisions of services, shall ensure that goods or services provided meet and comply with the contemporary technical and professional standards with reasonably expected safety requirements when placing the goods into the stream of commerce, or at the time rendering services.(Paragraph 2) All safety warnings and emergency response manuals shall be marked or labeled conspicuously on the goods or services provided which may cause harm to the lives, bodies, health or properties of consumers.(Paragraph 3) Traders shall be jointly and severally liable in violating the foregoing paragraphs and thereby causing injury or damage to consumers or third parties, provided that if traders can prove that they have not been negligent, the court may reduce damages.” This Article regulates that traders, whose service or products are involved with safety or sanitation risks and caused damages to consumers or a third party, shall be fully liable for the compensation regardless the damage was made with or without purpose or if it was made due to negligence. The purpose of this legislation is to enhance consumers’ rights and benefits by bounding traders’ liability with or without negligence. However, as regulated in Paragraph 3, traders who can prove that they have not been negligent to the cause of damage, the court may only reduce their liability for compensation instead of removing it. Adopted the legislation of strict liability, Consumer Protection Act has, in terms of the imputation principle, made service liability and product liability indifferent.
Some commentators believe that the Consumer Protection Act shall adopt “strict liability” for services. Due to his personal belief that the word “no-fault” may cause misunderstanding on the essential content of product or service liability, he therefore recommended to adopt “strict liability” as preferred in laws of the United States. Nevertheless, the said legislation is far well-developed that no countries with advanced laws and service industry have yet adopted similar legislation. The only exceptions are Brazil and the Mainland China. However, the former one has explicitly excluded its use in freelancer by a statute, whereas the latter one has little referential value due to unapparent development in law. Therefore, the theoretical and practical development of this legal system shall be more thoughtful not only to avoid possible risks and maximize benefits, but also to lead the community and world towards progress through “premature legislation” and “examples of advanced legislation”.
As a review of the recent development of aesthetic medicine, this article describes the certification methods and features of cosmetic medicine comparing with traditional medicine. It then carries out a discussion on aesthetic medicine that has aforementioned features (non-medical expenses) under the medical expense based national health insurance system, and the method of using this system appropriately. The discussion further deepens into the protection of aesthetic consumers together with researches on the service liability of consumer protection act and non-default liability for medical treatment. Finally, it ends up with the compensation system for medical dispute and doctors’ liabilities. This article attempts to find a balance between the consumers and service providers of aesthetic medicine.
|