Unfair trade practice, deficiency in service in treating cardiac patient: Consumer court directs hospital, bank to pay compensation
Amritsar: Holding unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on part of the hospital, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar has directed the hospital to pay Rs 5 lacs as compensation to the family of the patient who died at the hospital. Apart from this, the hospital has been directed to refund the amount that was taken from the family for the purpose...
Amritsar: Holding unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on part of the hospital, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar has directed the hospital to pay Rs 5 lacs as compensation to the family of the patient who died at the hospital.
Apart from this, the hospital has been directed to refund the amount that was taken from the family for the purpose of treatment, a total sum of Rs 1,30,000, after the patient expired.
Further, the Commission has also held the bank guilty for not releasing the money at the time of need and thus directed the authorities to pay Rs 50,000 to the patient's family.
The case goes back to the year 2017 when the patient, the father of the two complainants, got admitted to the treating hospital with complaints of a serious heart ailment. The family in their petition alleged that two days after they deposited RS 10,000 in advance and treatment started, the treating doctor allegedly threatened them to deposit Rs 2 lakh in cash immediately, and said that they would stop the treatment otherwise.
It was alleged that due to some problems at the bank, the amount couldn't be transferred to the hospital's account and the hospital then flatly refused to provide treatment to the patient. The Complainants claimed that due to non deposit of the said amount, and due to non release of the amount by the bank, the patient, who was in dire need of treatment and was on ventilator, expired the next day.
They further submitted that the hospital allegedly didn't disclose the death of the patient and demanded money all the same. Under the forced circumstances, the complainant deposited a cheque of Rs 50,000 and a sum of Rs 80,000 through RTGS to the hospital and after that, the hospital handed over the dead body of the patient.
Thus, alleging medical negligence and insufficient service by the hospital, the complainants moved the District Consumer Court in Amritsar and demanded Rs 10 lakh as compensation. They also alleged that the hospital had committed deficiency and negligence in service by not disclosing the death of the patient and charging the family for the treatment which the hospital never provided.
On the other hand, the treating hospital denied all the objections and pointed out that the complaint should be dismissed on the sole ground that the same subject matter had already been decided by Punjab Medical Council, Mohali and Civil Hospital, Amritsar.
The hospital further pointed out that the total bill for the treatment was Rs. 1,83,355/- and out of the total amount, Rs 1 lacs was paid by the complainants and Rs 83, 355 was due. In spite of paying the rest of the amount, the complainants have filed the complaint, argued the hospital.
It was further submitted by the hospital that at the time of the admission, the patient was in a critical condition and was suffering from a septic shock with diabetes nephropathy with uncontrolled T2DM with resistant/hypertension. The family of the patient had been told about the seriousness of the condition in detail. In fact, the hospital had also made it clear that the patient was suffering from septic shock which carries a mortality rate of more than 90% worldwide. After obtaining consent, best treatment possible was provided to the patient and the family was told about the financial liabilities beforehand.
The hospital also denied that the doctors had threatened to stop the treatment if the money was not deposited. Besides, the allegations that the hospital suppressed the truth and didn't disclose the death of the patient was also denied by the hospital.
After listening to contentions of both sides, the Commission noted that the complainant had submitted the letter written by the doctor of the hospital for withdrawing cash from the bank. However, responding to this, the hospital argued that the letter was written only at the request of the complainants. Meanwhile, the bank argued that they have acted as per the guidelines of RBI.
Before arriving at the conclusion, the Commission referred to several judgments including Supreme Court judgment in Arun Kumar Manglik Vs. Chirayu Health & Medicare Private Ltd., NCDRC case in Bhajan Lal Gupta & Anr. Vs. Mool Chand Kharati Ram Hospital & Ors. Etc.
The Commission then noted that the bank authorities also acknowledged that the hospital had stopped the treatment for the want of money. In fact, the Commission also took note of the letter which mentioned, "My request to the bank is to please transfer money into hospital account directly by RTGS so that his life can be saved and cause of his death should not be lack of money inspite of having money into his account."
"So this letter is sufficient to prove the malafide conduct of the hospital authorities that they have desperate to grab money instead of saving the life of the father of the complainant. Rather it is the moral duty of a doctor first to save the life of a patient and then to think about the money. But in the instant case the doctors of opposite party No.1 (the hospital) chosen the other way i.e. firstly thought about the medical bills and due to non payment of the medical bill which was not paid due to demonetization left the patient on death bed," noted the Commission.
"Such callous attitude not end there but the opposite party No.1 did not hand over the dead body despite the fact that the proper treatment was not provided due to lack of money until the complainant made payment of Rs. 50000/- through cheque and Rs. 80000/- through RTGS to opposite party No.1. So the opposite party No.1 is indulged not only guilty of negligence and deficiency in service rather also indulged in unfair trade practice by not providing treatment to the patient due to lack of money which was not released by opposite party No.2 (the bank) by mentioning the reason of demonetization," the judgment further added.
Further, the Commission noted that the contentions of the bank that the money was not released due to demonetization, the Court noted that the bank didn't submit even a single document on what sort of guidelines were issued by RBI regarding demonetization.
Thus, holding the bank guilty as well, the Commission noted,
"So by simply refusing the release of payment in such a critical condition of the father of the complainant, even so, when the opposite party No.1 duly written a letter Ex.C-28 in which it was clearly written that amount be deposited in the account of hospital authorities so that the life of patient be saved and cause of his death should not be lack of money inspite of having money into his account. So opposite party No.2 also indulged in deficiency in service."
Although the Commission noted that compensation is not a substitute for the life of an individual, it relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Amitabha Dasgupta Vs. United Bank of India and others AIR 2021 before determining the amount of compensation.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment, the consumer court thus directs the hospital to pay Rs 5 lacs as compensation and directed the bank to pay Rs 50,000. Further, the Commission also directed the hospital to refund the amount ( Rs 1,30,000) that was taken from the complainants after the patient died.
To read the court order, click on the link below.
Disclaimer: This site is primarily intended for healthcare professionals. Any content/information on this website does not replace the advice of medical and/or health professionals and should not be construed as medical/diagnostic advice/endorsement/treatment or prescription. Use of this site is subject to our terms of use, privacy policy, advertisement policy. © 2024 Minerva Medical Treatment Pvt Ltd