Apollo Hospital Held Liable for Not Disclosing Treatment Cost, Directed Rs 13 lakh compensation
Cuttack: Opining that not disclosing the quantum of money required for treatment on the part of the hospital amounts to unfair trade, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack recently held Apollo Hospitals, Chennai deficient in their service towards a patient undergoing treatment at the facility.
With this observation, the consumer court has directed the hospital and its treating doctor to pay Rs 13 lakhs as compensation to the complainants for their mental agony and harassment and further a sum of Rs 30,000 towards cost of their litigation.
The concerned patient is the wife of the first complainant and she sustained injury in her left leg by falling down. Therefore, she was admitted at Chanakya Hospital at Cuttack on 04.05.2015. Later she was taken to Apollo Hospital at Bhubaneswar and was admitted there, for which Rs 10,000 was deposited. Consequently, she was taken to the ICU and later to HDU. Finally she was shifted to Semi Private ward on 17.05.2015 and was kept there for two days.
Again she was taken to the HDU and finally she was shifted to private ward where she remained for four days. Rs 87,050 was collected from the complainants towards room-rent charges. Allegedly, during the treatment, the patient's daughter only for one chance to discuss about the patient with the treating doctor but allegedly the authorities did not disclose the fee structure of the hospital in spite of the query of the complainants.
Time and again, the complainants requested the authorities for the same and also expressed their final condition, alleged the complainants. Meanwhile, the condition of the patient worsened and finally, she was admitted at the E-24 Hospital, where she died while undergoing treatment.
The complainants alleged that even though various tests were being conducted by the treating hospital, they never communicated or consulted with the complainants about the treatment procedure or even the fee stricture which was required to be spent for the patient. Allegedly, they were billed for Rs 4,98,950 and they were compelled to pay the same.
It was further contended by the complainants that the treating hospital and doctor burdened them with heavy expenditure for the treatment. Further, they also allegedly engaged in amassing huge amount of illegal money from various patients by cheating them. The complainants also questioned about the usage of 782 number of gloves those which were alleged to have been used by the treating staff amounting to Rs 4,681. As per the complainants, practically no such doctor/staff were visiting the patient though charges were being taken for their visits.
Therefore, filing the consumer complaint, the complainants demanded compensation of Rs 36 lakh and also the refund of the entire amount spent for treatment.
While the treating doctor preferred not to contest, Apollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd, Chennai, and Apollo Hospital Bhubaneswar contested the case and informed the consumer court about the details of the treatment procedure.
They submitted that when the attendants of the patient expressed their financial stringency and other constraints, the patient was discharged from the hospital as per their desire and by then the patient was stable, tolerating oral feed and no apparatus were attached to her. Therefore, they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.
To support their claim, they brought the Commission's notice towards the copy of the Family Meeting Record wherein it was presumed that they had a discussion with the attendants of the patient.
However, while consider the matter, the Commission observed, "Of course, the said documents amply suggest about the discussion that the treating physician with the attendants/relatives of the patient but nowhere the amount of money involved for the clinical surgery has been quoted/mentioned by the said physician apprising the attendants/relatives of the patient accordingly."
"When the O.Ps do admit that they could diagnose the disease of the patient Nirupama Pattanaik, they could have provided the tentative expenditure that was to be incurred towards the treatment of the said patient," it further noted.
Taking note of the allegations of the complainants that the hospital was silent regarding the expenses that was to be spent for the patient, the Commission observed,
"As a genuine physician and of a good reputation the O.Ps should have provided the approximate expenditure to the complainants so as to make them aware of their expense for their patient in order to bring clarity in their profession and business. By avoiding the said fact it cannot be said here in this case that the O.Ps had fair trade which also violates the provisions as laid down in "The Indian Medical Council Act 1956".
Apart from this, the commission also referred to the allegations regarding abnormal charges and noted,
"That apart, the complainants have also urged about the charges levied upon them those which appears to be abnormal and far from truth. The visits of the treating doctors and nursing staffs also though charged promptly, they were not in practical terms visiting the patient so regularly or periodically as charged. It is admitted fact that the patient was thereafter taken away being discharged from Apollo Hospital at Bhubaneswar to E-24 Hospital,Puri where she had expired ultimately. Be that as it may, here in order to implicate the O.Ps as regards to the allegation of deficiency in their service, it is noticed that though comaflouged by the O.Ps in every manner, the quinthessence of truth is well significant which imbibes this Commission to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that infact by suppressing/not disclosing about the quantum of money that which was to be required for treating the patient Nirupama Pattanaik, the O.Ps had infact practised unfair trade and had thereby were also deficient in their services towards the complainants."
Therefore, holding the complainants entitled to relief, the Consumer Court ordered, "Case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps no.1 & 2 and exparte against O.P no.3 who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. Thus, the O.Ps are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- (Thirteen lakhs) to the complainants towards their mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of their litigation. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/apollo-hospital-unfair-trade-228172.pdf
