Chandigarh Consumer Court slapped compensation for denying CABG operation during COVID-19 pandemic
Chandigarh: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) recently directed a Mohali-based super-specialty hospital to refund Rs 1,04,083 to a patient who was denied heart surgery by the hospital due to the increasing COVID-19 cases.
The patient had paid an amount of Rs 2,30,000 in advance for undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital postponed the surgery and refunded only a partial amount back to the patient.
"By non refunding the total money paid by the complainant OP No.2 indulged in unfair trade practice and are deficient in rendering service," opined the consumer court.
Apart from refunding the amount, the hospital was also directed to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the patient and another Rs 10,000 as litigation costs.
The matter goes back to the time during COVID-19 pandemic. The Complainant was suffering from heart diseases and was already taking treatment from the PGI, Chandigarh. Since PGI gave long date for surgery, the complainant approached Dr Sarwal for consultation.
He was told that his condition was very critical and was suggested to visit the treating hospital in Mohali. Meanwhile. the complainant informed the doctor that his surgery at PGI was postponed due to COVID-19 and inquired if the surgery could be done by Dr. Sarwal, who informed him that the treating hospital was ensuring all COVID-19 protocols. He also informed that they were conducting the surgeries over there and ensured the complainant that he was in safe hands.
Accordingly, the complainant approached Shalby Multispecialty Hospital and was admitted. After conducting various tests, the complainant was given an estimate of Rs 4,60,000 as the cost of treatment. Allegedly, the surgery was scheduled for 26.02.2021 and all the preparations for the surgery were made. However, suddenly the doctor and the hospital refused to conduct the surgery on the grounds of COVID-19 norms and allegedly threatened the complainant that if did not deposit the charges he would be closed with coronal patients to be left to die.
It was further alleged by the complainant that even though he deposited Rs 2,30,000, the hospital and doctor refunded only Rs 1,25,917 and usurped the remaining amount without giving any service. It was further alleged that due to the negligent act of the hospital and the doctor, the complainant received a cardiac attack in July 2021 and his life could hardly be saved. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of the hospital, the complainant approached the consumer court and filed the complaint.
On the other hand, the treating doctor informed the consumer court that the complainant had approached him for CABG-Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. It was submitted by him that at the time when the surgery was scheduled, the COVID-19 cases started to increase in numbers and it was evident that the second wave of COVID-19 was peeking.
Therefore, the vigilant medical team headed by him in discussion with the management of the treating hospital, eventually took a call to hold the elective surgeries. It was also submitted that the patient could not be operated till the investigations were completed and the clearance had been obtained. However, certain investigations like blood culture etc. were yet to be reported and therefore, the surgery was held up.
Accordingly, at the time of discharge, the patient was returned Rs. 1,25,917. However, the expenditure incurred on the investigations/medicines/stay of the patient from 22.02.2021 to 28.02.2021 was charged with the clear understanding of the patient that as and when the second wave of COVID-19 would subside and the patient would be back for the surgery, the said amount would be adjusted towards the total bill and even though the patient would have to undergo all the tests/medications/stay before the surgery as well, nothing would be charged for the same.
Meanwhile, the hospital admitted that the complainant was admitted there. It was submitted that the complainant was well aware that he visited during the pandemic and the hospital did not compromise with anything as it was a matter of the patients. Further, the hospital submitted that after completing all necessary formalities and taking consent by signature, the complainant's surgery was postponed due to the rise in COVID-19 cases as the hospital could not risk the life of patient in that crucial period.
Therefore, the hospital denied all the allegations of negligence, casual and deficient services against the hospital and claimed that the allegations were wrong.
While considering the matter, the consumer court noted that the main grievance of the complainant was that in spite of having carried out all the relevant tests after his admission to the hospital, the surgery was not done and part payment of Rs 1,25,917 was made out of the total payment made to the hospital and the doctor. The complainant had paid altogether Rs 2,30,000.
Further, the Commission observed that the hospital charged an amount of Rs. 1,25,917 out of Rs 2,30,000. Taking note of the reply filed by the hospital, the Commission noted that the hospital admitted that the surgery was postponed due to rise in COVID-19 cases on 28.02.2021.
Apart from this, the Consumer Court also noted that "...the complainant was admitted in OP No.2’s hospital on 22.2.2021 in critical condition and several tests were conducted on the complainant. Moreover, it is observed from record that no specific date was given for conduct of surgery."
As per the commission, there was a wastage of money as it noted, "No useful purpose was served for the tests carried out on the complainant as the surgery was postponed by the OP No.2, and there was sheer wastage of money paid by the complainant. As the planned surgery was postponed by OP No.2, the complainant cannot be made to penalized for the tests carried as no useful purpose served."
It also opined that by non refunding the total money paid by the complainant, the hospital indulged in unfair trade practice and it was deficient in rendering service.
In respect of the role of the treating doctor, the Commission observed, "OP No.1 cannot be held liable for any deficiency as he has used one of the best practices for the examination and carrying out the necessary tests for the patient. The OP No.1 is very well qualified and one of the best practitioner in his area of work. Hence, the complaint qua OP No.1 is deserved to be dismissed."
Therefore, partly allowing the complainant, the Consumer Court directed the hospital to refund Rs 1,04,083 with interest @9% P.A. from 28.02.2021 when the date of final bill issued till onwards.
The hospital was asked to pay another Rs 20,000 to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him. Further, the Commission also imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 as costs of litigation.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/chandigarh-dcdrc-226916.pdf
