Dismissal of a request for revision against a judgment of the Federal Supreme Court in a case of daily sickness benefit insurance

Facts

The [X.] Insurance AG (applicant) had concluded a freedom of movement insurance policy (daily sickness benefit insurance) with [Z.] on December 22, 2004, under the IPA. The insured person assigned their claims from the daily sickness benefit insurance to the social welfare office of the municipality of Lindau (respondent). The respondent filed a lawsuit for payment of daily benefits for the period from March 27, 2005, to May 20, 2006. The Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld the lawsuit and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent an amount of CHF 32,219, plus 5% interest since December 1, 2011. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by the applicant against this decision.

The applicant filed a request for revision, seeking the annulment of the Federal Supreme Court's judgment and the Social Insurance Court of the Canton of Zurich's judgment, as well as the dismissal of the respondent's lawsuit. The respondent requested the dismissal of the request for revision.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the request for revision met the statutory requirements. It found that the request had been filed in a timely and proper manner and that the applicant had invoked the grounds for revision under Art. 121 lit. a, c, and d FSCA.

The court investigated the ground for revision under Art. 121 lit. d FSCA, which allows for revision if the court has failed to consider significant facts in the records by mistake. The applicant claimed that the Federal Supreme Court had incorrectly perceived the considerations and findings of the lower court. However, the Federal Supreme Court found that it had correctly understood the lower court's considerations and that no significant facts had been overlooked.

The court also examined the ground for revision under Art. 121 lit. c FSCA, which allows for revision if individual requests have been left unadjudicated. The applicant argued that the Federal Supreme Court had not evaluated the medical reports it had submitted. However, the Federal Supreme Court found that it had taken note of the medical reports but had waived…