意外受傷傷者支付了醫療開支，通常會先向自己購買的醫療保險或意外保險索償。
常理而言，傷者之後聘請律師向疏忽司機及其第三者責任保險公司展開民事索償時，就醫療開支方面應該實報實銷，而不應雙重索償而從中得益。索償痛楚及生活便利損失(PSLA)及收入損失等則另當別論。
然而，法理上，法庭在民事索償案件中，其實技術上允許「雙重索償」(double recovery)。例如，即使傷者支付了10萬元醫療費用，並從自己購買的醫療保險成功索償10萬元醫療開支，在民事索償案件中，法庭依然允許傷者向疏忽司機及其保險公司再索償這10萬元醫療費用。
這方面的經典案例是英國案例 Hussain v. New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 336 and Hunt v. Severs [1994] 2 WLR 602.。在此案中，法庭裁定如原告人有自行供款購買個人意外保險，遭遇意外時，個人意外保險已向原告人支付的賠償，並不應該在民事索償的訴訟案件中的賠償扣除。法庭判詞如下：
” … But to the prima facie rule there are two well established exceptions. First, where a plaintiff recovers under an insurance policy for which he has paid the premiums, the insurance moneys are not deductible from damages payable by the tortfeasor .…Secondly, when the plaintiff receives money from the benevolence of third parties prompted by sympathy of his misfortune, as in the case of a beneficiary from a disaster fund, the amount received is again to be disregarded … In both these cases there is in one sense double recovery. If the award of damages adequately compensates the plaintiff, as it should, the additional amounts received from the insurer or from third party benevolence may be regarded as a net gain to the plaintiff resulting from his injury. But in both cases the common sense of the exceptions stares one in the face. It may be summed up in the rhetorical question: ‘Why should the tortfeasor derive any benefit, in the one case, from the premiums which the plaintiff has paid to insure himself against some contingency, however caused, in the other case, from the money provided by the third party with the sole intention of benefitting the injured plaintiff?’”
簡言之，法庭的理據是，疏忽方並不應該因原告人自行購買了保險，而在民事索償中減低自己賠償原告人的責任，繼而從中得益。
法庭留意到，這情況下，原告人可能因此「雙重索償」(double recovery)了醫療費用，而獲得額外得益。
香港法庭在HUI FOUT KWONG (許涪江) v PINE LOGISTICS COMPANY LIMITED (加林美物流有限公司) [2010] HKCU 1503的工傷案件中，跟從了上述的英國案例，判定原告人自行購買的保險而獲得的賠償金，無需在向疏忽方民事索償的案件中的賠償扣除。
“Of course, Hui may be liable to account the compensation awarded, or any part of it, to his insurance company which has paid the insured amount on account of this accident. Whether there is basis for such liability of Hui to account is still a matter of contract between them; and certainly nothing to do with Pine Logistics’ liability under the Ordinance.”
法庭明言，即使原告人在民事索償中獲得了醫療費用的雙重賠償，原告人很可能需要向自己的保險公司退還自己保險公司的賠償，但這主要視乎原告人的保單條款，也不在法庭在目前的工傷民事索償案件考慮之列。
因此，簡言之，技術上原告人可以雙重索償醫療費用，即同時領取自己醫療保險的賠償，以及民事索償從疏忽方取得有關醫療費用的賠償。但實際上，原告人很可能需要在民事索償完成後，將雙重索償的部分，退還給自己的保險公司。
因此，傷者在考慮能否雙重索償醫療費用時，務必先細心查閱保單條款。
HK 
EN