A Delhi hospital has been directed to refund fee to a patient by a consumer forum which found that it had been negligent in treating the man who had come with a complaint of acute abdominal pain,forcing him to shift to another hospital.
The east Delhi District Consumer Forum asked Shanti Mukund Hospital to refund the fee charged from I J S Ahluwalia who had been admitted in the hospital with complaint of abdominal pain in year 2010.
The forum noted that Ahluwalia was admitted to the hospital on October 27,2010 with abdominal pain but no senior doctor attended to him and only medical students examined him.
His counsel K K Sharma told the forum that inspite of his client’s critical health condition,no senior doctor was called and the next day,a surgeon inserted a small rubber tube in his stomach through his nose in such a negligent manner that it resulted in nasal bleeding.
Being completely dissatisfied with the services at the hospital,Ahluwalia got a discharge on October 28 against medical advice and paid a bill of Rs 13,540.
He then got admitted in Fortis hospital where he got proper treatment and was discharged after 3-4 days. It cost him nearly Rs 36,000.
Ahluwalia approached the consumer forum claiming refund of the fee paid to Shanti Mukund hospital and also compensation.
The Shanti Mukund hospital in its reply claimed that Ahluwalia was on the right line of treatment and submitted that the complainant’s family left the hospital against medical advice.
“Every patient will expect best treatment as he is paying for the same….It was a case of stomach pain. Then in that case where was the need of putting tube through the nose. The blood from the nose was the result of unnecessary insertion of tune. In these circumstances,we find some merit in the claim of the complainant,” the bench comprising President N A Zaidi and member T Vijayan said.
“We direct Opposite Party (shantimukund hospital) to refund to the complainant Rs 13,540 as he could not get proper treatment in their hospital,” the forum directed.
The forum,however,refused to direct payment of compensation on the merits of the case.