|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE apex consumer court had once described a doctor, who had a degree in one system of medicine but practised another, as a quack and a charlatan. How does one describe those who refused treatment to an accident victim as he did not happen to carry Rs 15,000 at the time and was, therefore, unable to fulfil the hospital’s condition for admission? Call them what you will, but the apex consumer court has made sure that doctors and hospitals do not get away with such callous and unethical behaviour. In a recent order, which is highly critical of such crass commercialisation of the medical profession, the court has held a hospital liable for the consequences of its action in insisting on payment before treatment. (Pravat Kumar Mukherjee vs Ruby General Hospital, OP no 90 of 2002) Justice M.B.Shah, president, and Mr P.D.Shenoy, member, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, have in their order come down heavily on those hospitals that treat money as more important than life. The 20-page order begins thus: "Can doctors insist and wait for money (fees) when death is knocking at the doors of the patient? The obvious answer is recovery of fee can wait - but not death – nor the treatment for trying to save life". The order refers to the treatment meted out by a Calcutta hospital to a 20-year-old engineering student, Sumanta Mukherjee, when he was brought in a critical condition to the hospital, following an accident. On January 14, 2001, while on his way to college, Sumanta was knocked off his motorbike by a bus of the Calcutta Tramway Corporation. As Sumanta lay bleeding on the roadside, certin good Samaritans called a taxi and took him to the nearby Ruby General Hospital. At that time, Sumanta was conscious and told them and later the hospital, too, that he had a mediclaim policy of the New India Assurance Company for Rs 65,000 and that he would pay whatever expenses were incurred on his treatment. The hospital emergency ward began his treatment but discontinued it as the patient could not deposit Rs 15,000. The boy was moved in a critical condition to a government hospital 8 km away. By the time Sumanta reached the hospital he was dead. In his complaint before the apex consumer court, Sumanta’s father, a doctor by profession, held the hospital responsible for the death. He also alleged that by starting the treatment and discontinuing it his son’s death had been hastened. The court referred to the inquiry conducted by the Government of West Bengal on a complaint from the father. It also referred to the order of the Joint Director, Health Services, which, after analysing the inquiry report, had admitted "there was gross negligence on the part of the hospital and that it’s behaviour had defied all medical ethics. There was also gross violation of the Clinical Establishment Rules, and Act of 1950, as amended in 1998". The commission directed the hospital to pay the parents of the boy Rs 10 lakh as compensation. In cases such as this, citizens or consumers should also take some pro-active steps. They should boycott such hospitals till they apologise publicly and give an undertaking that they would not indulge in such practices in future. |
