Consumer court slaps Rs 60k compensation on hospital for withholding discharge summary from COVID patient
Hospital Fined
Ahmedabad: A private hospital based in Ahmedabad has recently been directed to pay Rs 60,000 as compensation to a senior citizen for failing to provide him with a discharge summary and payment receipts after the patient underwent treatment for COVID-19.
Due to the lack of required documents, the patient was rendered ineligible for health insurance reimbursement.
Apart from directing the hospital to pay compensation, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (rural) has also issued directions to the facility for supplying the patient with the discharge summary, case papers, and requisite payment receipts within a month, so that the patient can apply for a reimbursement.
The patient is a retired employee of New India Assurance Co Ltd., and had a health insurance cover of Rs 15 lakh. Back in May 2021, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the patient fell ill and was hospitalised at the treating hospital for about two weeks.
It had been alleged by the complainant/patient that the hospital management refused to accept payment by cheque or digital mode and insisted on cash payments.
During the treatment, the patient incurred Rs 3.17 lakh towards treatment and more than Rs 12,000 for investigation reports. However, allegedly, the hospital failed to issue proper payment receipts and provided only unstamped receipts on its letterhead. He also alleged that he was not given a discharge summary or case papers when he was discharged on May 14, TOI has reported.
Since he did not have these documents, the patient/complainant was unable to submit an insurance claim and therefore sought directions against the hospital to provide all the necessary records.
On the other hand, the hospital management claimed that the patient had left the hospital after creating a ruckus and without settling the bills. Due to this, he was not provided with the discharge summary and case papers. Further, the hospital alleged that the complainant misused the hospital's letterheads to pass them off as bills. These allegations were denied by the complainant.
After hearing the submissions by both sides, the District Consumer Court observed that the hospital failed to produce any evidence to support its claims, noting that it had never filed any complaint regarding the alleged misuse of letterheads. Having no proof, the commission concluded that the hospital had "shown serious deficiency in service, negligence, and unfair trade practice".
