Background and Aims: Undoubtedly, the conventionality of man is considered based on contractual and non-contractual civil responsibility. The responsibility and obligation of doctors is contractual or non-contractual. If the patient chooses the doctor himself, a contractual obligation is created, which, of course, does not require a written contract, and if a person consults a doctor and accepts the treatment, it indicates the existence of a contract. The purpose of this research is to investigate the position of the conventional man based on the diagnosis of fault in the civil responsibility of doctors.
Materials and Methods: This article is descriptive-analytical. The materials and data are qualitative, and in collecting the materials and data, the fish collection method was used.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed.
Findings: Although guilt is a customary and social concept; But it is considered relative. In addition, the fault can be both intentional and unintentional. The role of a normal human being in the illegal, wastage, glorification, usurpation, usurpation and profane administration of invisible property is invisible, and according to this recognition, fault is a principle and one of the pillars of the doctors' civil liability lawsuit.
Conclusion: The present research has come to the conclusion that according to the Islamic Penal Code approved in 92 and the doctor's responsibility, the responsibility based on fault has been determined, and he is not responsible for the damages caused to the patient if he is proven innocent or if he is acquitted.