Hospital cannot hold dead body of patient hostage for recovery of debt: Commission slams Fortis Mohali, slaps compensation
The commission observed that dragging the complainants in the criminal proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs 58,931/- on dishonor of the said cheque amount despite the fact that the Fortis Hospital was not entitled to receive the said amount from the appellants/complainants, is not only illegal, but it is also squarely unethical, barbaric, in humane, torturous and henious for the public at large.
Chandigarh: Noting that a hospital cannot hostage the dead body of a patient for recovery of any bonafide and legally enforceable debt due towards the patient or his legal heirs, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.T., Chandigarh has directed Fortis Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to the kin of deceased for withholding the deceased patient's body until an unlawful payment demand was met.
Clarifying that there are other remedies available to the hospital for the recovery of the same, the Commission observed that the deficiency in providing service, in-humanitarian attitude and adoption of unfair trade practice by the said Hospital was not only illegal, but also squarely unethical, barbaric, in humane, torturous and henious for the public at large.
Presiding over the case, Justice Raj Shekhar Attri, President and Rajesh K Arya, Member, while issuing the order, observed that deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice, disturbing the peace of the dead and in-humanitarian approach is writ large on the part of the Fortis Hospital.
Background
In this case, the deceased patient's wife and their son filed a complaint against Fortis Hospital, Fortis Healthcare Ltd., Sector 62, Phase-VIII, Mohali, and its Managing Director, alleging that the hospital demanded Rs 58,931 from the family, which the complainants argued was an illegal charge.
The Case
The patient, a beneficiary under the Centre Government Health Scheme (CGHS) at Fortis Hospital in SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab, died during surgery on December 3, 2017. The hospital, despite an agreement stating that CGHS authorities would cover all treatment expenses directly, raised a bill of Rs 2,05,067, with Rs 58,931 demanded from the patient's share for high-end antibiotics used due to the incidental finding of malignancy/cancer. After his's death, the hospital refused to release his body without the payment of Rs.58,931. Following this, his son issued a check for the amount, but later stopped the payment upon realizing that the hospital was not entitled to demand any money as per CGHS rules. The hospital then filed a criminal complaint against his son under the Negotiable Instrument Act, leading to his summoning as an accused. However, the complaint was eventually dismissed when the son made the payment of Rs 58,931 to the hospital.
Consumer Complaint and Argument
Aggrieved, the complainants moved the District Commission alleging that the hospital's actions amounted to unfair trade practices, as CGHS guidelines clearly stated that no such payment should have been demanded. They further alleged that the hospital's demand for this amount and the withholding of the body caused them immense mental and physical harassment, humiliation, and pain.
However, the hospital claimed that the total cost of treatment was Rs.2,05,067, out of which Rs.58,931 was for high-end antibiotics used due to an incidental finding of malignancy, which was not part of the CABG package. The hospital demanded this amount from the patient. A cheque issued by the complainant towards the patient's share was dishonored, leading to legal action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the complaint was eventually dismissed when the payment was made. The opposite parties contested that the legal action does not make them susceptible to allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, and they criticized the order passed by CGHS authorities as illegal, arbitrary, and non-speaking.
In response to the complaint, CGHS Authorities, who were parties in the case, admitted the factual details. They stated that Fortis Hospital had raised a bill amounting to Rs 2,05,067, out of which the admissible amount was paid as per CGHS rates. The complainants had issued a legal notice, and Fortis Hospital was asked to explain the reasons for charging an amount over and above the package rates. Fortis Hospital failed to respond within the stipulated period, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs 50,000 plus Rs 58,931, totaling Rs1,08,931. This amount was to be recovered from pending bills of Fortis Hospital, and the complainants were directed to submit their medical claim for reimbursement. On receipt of the medical reimbursement claim bill from the complainants, it was passed for payment.
District Commission’s Ruling
After evaluating the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the available evidence, the District Commission ruled in favor of the complainants and issued an order, dated 16.09.2022, and stated that the unfair trade practice of the opposing parties (OPs No.1 & 2 ie the Hospital and its Managing Director) had been established. Consequently, the complaint was upheld against them, with a directive for them to compensate the complainant with Rs 1 Lakh for causing immense mental and physical harassment, in addition to litigation costs of 10,000.
The order mandated the OPs to comply within 45 days of receiving the order. Failure to do so would result in additional costs of Rs 25,000.
However, dissatisfied with the order, both parties subsequently filed separate appeals. Fortis Hospital (OPs No.1 and 2) filed Appeal no.179 of 2022 seeking to set aside the District Commission's order, while the complainants filed an appeal to modify the order by increasing the compensation to Rs17 lacs from the Rs1 lac awarded by the District Commission.
Findings and Observations of the State Commission
The Commission found that the deceased patient, a CGHS beneficiary, was entitled to cashless treatment, yet Fortis Hospital demanded Rs 58,931 as patient share, which was found to be illegal. The hospital's demand for the amount was considered illegal, immoral, unethical, and an adoption of unfair trade practice by the commission. It observed;
"The act and conduct of the Fortis Hospital by raising the demand of Rs 58,931/-, referred to above, from the complainants which it was not entitled to, as explained above; thereafter retaining the dead body of Sh.Surat Singh and shifting it to the mortuary instead of handing it to the NOK till receipt of cheque No.100733 dated 3.12.2017 for an amount of Rs.58,931/- from Rajinder Singh Rawat/complainant no.2; and thereafter, dragging Sh.Rajinder Singh Rawat/complainant no.2 in the criminal proceedings for recovery of the amount of Rs 58,931/- on dishonor of the said cheque amount despite the fact that the Fortis Hospital was not entitled to receive the said amount from the appellants/complainants, is not only illegal, but it is also squarely unethical, barbaric, in humane, torturous and henious for the public at large. Thus, deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice, disturbing the peace of the dead and in-humanitarian approach is writ large on the part of the Fortis Hospital."
The commission also noted that the hospital filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act when a cheque for the amount was dishonored, and the deceased's body was withheld until the payment was made, which was deemed an act of disrespect towards the deceased. It noted;
"Retaining the dead body in the hospital for want of alleged amount of Rs.58,931/- is an act of disrespect towards the deceased. In case there is any bonafide and legally enforceable debt due towards the patient or his legal heirs, there are other remedies available to the hospital for the recovery of the same but a hospital cannot hostage the dead body of a patient."
In addition, the commission cited legal precedents and highlighted the importance of conferring dignity to dead persons, emphasizing the right to live with human dignity, including for deceased individuals.
The commission further found that the deceased's family might have undergone mental agony, humiliation, harassment, and pain due to the hospital's actions.
In light of these findings, the Commission awarded compensation to the complainants.The complainants were granted Rs 4 lakhs in compensation, up from the original award of Rs 1 lakh. An additional Rs 35,000 was granted as litigation cost. The hospital was given 30 days to fulfill this payment. In the event of non-compliance, the amounts would accrue 9% interest from the default date.
It held;
"In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac awarded by the District Commission is on the lower side. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission needs modification. Resultantly, Appeal No. 161 of 2022 filed by the complainants titled as Smt.Bego Devi and another Vs. Fortis Hospital and others is partly allowed. The order impugned stands modified and the respondents no.1 and 2 (Fortis Hospital) jointly and severally are directed as under:-
a. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs instead of Rs.1 lakh as awarded by the District Commission, to the appellants (Smt.Bego Devi and Sh.Rajinder Singh Rawat) for causing them mental agony, pain, humiliation and harassment and for deficiency in providing service, in-humanitarian attitude and adoption of unfair trade practice and also cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.35,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the District Commission, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the said amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realization. "
To view the original order, click on the link below:
