Prescribed milk Consumption To Ulcerative Colitis Patient, exaggerated COVID-19 treatment bill: Max Hospital held liable, slapped compensation

Chandigarh: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Chandigarh has ordered Max Super Speciality Hospital to pay Rs 1.20 Lakh compensation to a Mohali-based patient for inflating his COVID-19 treatment bill. Further, the bench held 'clear cut negligence on the part of the Dietician acting upon for the Hospital' in prescribing consumption of milk at night, which poses severe health risks to the patient as he suffers from Ulcerative Colitis.

In 2021, the complainant was admitted to Max Hospital, Mohali as a Covid-positive patient on 23.01.2021 and discharged after treatment on 12.02.2021. It was alleged that for the treatment, the hospital charged him Rs 7,62,445.80 out of which Rs. 1,11,851 was charged from the complainant and the balance was charged from the Insurance Company.

After being discharged, when the patient checked the bills, he came to know that the hospital had wrongly charged him for the visit of a Dietician whereas no such visit was done and the Insurance Company did not pay the said amount. The complainant also found out that the dietician of the hospital advised him to take milk at night. In contrast, he was a patient of Ulcerative Colitis, due to which, consuming milk could lead to serious consequences on his health.

Further, he alleged that the Physiotherapist visit, which was charged twice a day for the stay in the ICU, was never done. He claimed that a Physiotherapist demonstrated some breathing exercises on her first visit and thereafter she just asked to do the exercise. 

The complainant/patient claimed that there were further multiple instances of overcharging by the hospital- including alpha bed, PPE kits, etc. Further, the charges of Rs 6,620 towards CT contrast were allegedly wrongly mentioned in the bill as the same was not done.

Also Read: No relief: HC Refuses to quash Summon against Max Hospital, Cardiologist on Accusations of Implanting Cheap Pacemaker

Therefore, filing the consumer complaint, the patient prayed to direct the hospital to pay Rs 3 lacs along with interest as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost.

On the other hand, the hospital submitted that the total bill was Rs 762445.86 out of which Rs 44108 was discounted as per MOU and an amount of Rs 606486 was approved by the Insurance Company and the patient paid the balance amount of Rs 1,11,851.

The hospital claimed that it raised the bill as per the hospital tariff and as per the MOU between the insurance company and the hospital. Therefore, the hospital denied its responsibility and submitted that it was between the insurance company and the complainant to seek any refund, if available. 

Further, the hospital referred to the bill and the treatment record to argue that the diet chart was followed under the supervision of a professional dietician. The hospital also claimed that Physiotherapy was done as per the regular medical treatment of the patient.

While considering the matter, the consumer court noted that the advice of the Dietician to take milk at night to the patient/consumer, who is suffering from Ulcerative Colitis was the wrong advice which could lead to serious consequences on the health of the patient/consumer.

Terming it to be a "clear cut negligence on the part of the Dietician acting upon for the Hospital" and opining that "it amounts to deficiency in service", the Commission noted that the hospital failed to submit any cogent and convincing documentary evidence to justify the said charges billed from the complainant. 

 It is observed that the advice of the Dietician to take milk at night to the patient/consumer, who is suffering from Ulcerative Colitis is a wrong advice which could lead to serious consequences on the health of the patient/consumer, which is a clear cut negligence on the part of the Dietician acting upon for the Hospital and it amounts to deficiency in service. Further the OP No.1 Hospital failed to lead any cogent and convincing documentary evidence to justify the said charges billed from the complainant. 

"Therefore, it is held that the OP No.1 Hospital has illegally exaggerated the medical bill of the complainant by adding wrong charges for the services which were never provided to the complainant and this amounts to deficiency in service as well as adoption of unfair trade practice on the parts of OP No.1 Hospital," opined the consumer court.

Directing the hospital to pay Rs 1.2 lakh compensation to the patient, the Commission mentioned in its order, "Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed against OP No.1. Accordingly the complaint stands Partly Allowed against OP No.1. The OP No.1 is directed to compensate the complainant by paying a lump sum amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for causing loss, harassment and mental agony due to its deficient services as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice, which also includes litigation expenses."

"This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay the awarded amount of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of order till its actual realization," it stated.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/chandigarh-dcdrc-241077.pdf

Also Read: Forceps Left Inside Patient's Abdomen At GMC Kozhikode: Gynaecologist, 2 nurses get bail