DURING EMERGENCY, THE HOSPITALS ARE DUTY BOUND TO RENDER SERVICE.
.
The complainant were the parents of deceased boy, 2nd year B.tech student - the complaint was filed in National Commission of India.
The boy was hit by a Calcutta transport bus and rushed to the hospital .The boy was conscious when he was taken to hospital and he showed his medical insurance card, which clearly says that the boy will be given Rs.65,000 by the Insurance company in case of accident, relying on it hospital started treating boy but after giving some initial treatment hospital demanded Rs15,000 and on the non- payment of the demanded money hospital discontinued treatment of the boy and the boy was rushed to another hospital in the way the boy died.
.
It is contended by the hospital that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is no concept of imposing a consumer on a service provider. There is no law which makes the person injured a consumer of the hospital itself within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A person can be a consumer only by hiring or availing of services for consideration as set out in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. He, therefore, contended that admittedly, in the present case, no consideration was fixed and no amount was received from the complainant, and, therefore, there is no relationship between the deceased and or the complainant with the hospital or doctors and, therefore, the deceased or his father is not a consumer covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable.
.
However, 2(1)(d). ‘Consumer’ means any person who—
“..................................
hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”
.
In the present case, admittedly, the deceased availed for the service of the hospital and the doctors. Doctors started giving treatment to the deceased because of emergency. That itself is availing of the services may be free of cost or promised deferred payment—
.
Injured citizen brought for medical treatment, should be instantaneously given medical aid to preserve life. For this purpose, reference was made to Clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics drawn up with the approval of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act which are as under—
.
“10. Obligations to the sick—Though a physician is not bound to treat each and every one asking his services except in emergencies for the sake of humanity and the noble traditions of the profession, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but should be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he incurs in the discharge of his ministrations, he should never forget that the health and the lives of those entrusted to his care depend on his skill and attention. A physician should endeavour to add to the comfort of the sick by making his visits at the hour indicated to the patients.
.
13. The patient must not be neglected—A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He should, however, respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency or whenever temperate public opinion expects the service. Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving notice to the patient, his relatives or his responsible friends sufficiently long in advance of his withdrawal to allow them to secure another medical attendant. No provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care.”
.
Further once the treatment has started, it would mean that the complainant has hired the services. May be at the relevant time the considering was not fixed or not paid. But, it was either promised, deferred or because of implicit duty of a noble profession in such emergency cases.
It is also an established law that under the Act National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to award compensation depending upon established facts and the circumstances of the case.
.
While dealing with such contention in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Others, III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), the Court observed that the Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded in an established case which not only serve the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about the qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. The Court pertinently observed:
.
“It is not merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments, etc. suffered by the appellant which is in issue—it is also the quality of conduct committed by the respondents upon which attention is required to be founded in a case of proven negligence.”
.
Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it would be just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for mental pain and agony. This may serve the purpose of bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the hospitals of providing service to the human beings as human beings. Human touch is necessary; that is their code of conduct; that is their duty and that is what is required to be implemented. In emergency or critical cases let them discharge their duty/social obligation of rendering service without waiting for fees or for consent.
.
For full details of the case, refer to Law Journal: II 2005 CPJ 35 (NC).
.
The complainant were the parents of deceased boy, 2nd year B.tech student - the complaint was filed in National Commission of India.
The boy was hit by a Calcutta transport bus and rushed to the hospital .The boy was conscious when he was taken to hospital and he showed his medical insurance card, which clearly says that the boy will be given Rs.65,000 by the Insurance company in case of accident, relying on it hospital started treating boy but after giving some initial treatment hospital demanded Rs15,000 and on the non- payment of the demanded money hospital discontinued treatment of the boy and the boy was rushed to another hospital in the way the boy died.
.
It is contended by the hospital that under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there is no concept of imposing a consumer on a service provider. There is no law which makes the person injured a consumer of the hospital itself within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A person can be a consumer only by hiring or availing of services for consideration as set out in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. He, therefore, contended that admittedly, in the present case, no consideration was fixed and no amount was received from the complainant, and, therefore, there is no relationship between the deceased and or the complainant with the hospital or doctors and, therefore, the deceased or his father is not a consumer covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this complaint is not maintainable.
.
However, 2(1)(d). ‘Consumer’ means any person who—
“..................................
hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”
.
In the present case, admittedly, the deceased availed for the service of the hospital and the doctors. Doctors started giving treatment to the deceased because of emergency. That itself is availing of the services may be free of cost or promised deferred payment—
.
Injured citizen brought for medical treatment, should be instantaneously given medical aid to preserve life. For this purpose, reference was made to Clauses 10 and 13 of the Code of Medical Ethics drawn up with the approval of the Central Government under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act which are as under—
.
“10. Obligations to the sick—Though a physician is not bound to treat each and every one asking his services except in emergencies for the sake of humanity and the noble traditions of the profession, he should not only be ever ready to respond to the calls of the sick and the injured, but should be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility he incurs in the discharge of his ministrations, he should never forget that the health and the lives of those entrusted to his care depend on his skill and attention. A physician should endeavour to add to the comfort of the sick by making his visits at the hour indicated to the patients.
.
13. The patient must not be neglected—A physician is free to choose whom he will serve. He should, however, respond to any request for his assistance in an emergency or whenever temperate public opinion expects the service. Once having undertaken a case, the physician should not neglect the patient, nor should he withdraw from the case without giving notice to the patient, his relatives or his responsible friends sufficiently long in advance of his withdrawal to allow them to secure another medical attendant. No provisionally or fully registered medical practitioner shall wilfully commit an act of negligence that may deprive his patient or patients from necessary medical care.”
.
Further once the treatment has started, it would mean that the complainant has hired the services. May be at the relevant time the considering was not fixed or not paid. But, it was either promised, deferred or because of implicit duty of a noble profession in such emergency cases.
It is also an established law that under the Act National Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to award compensation depending upon established facts and the circumstances of the case.
.
While dealing with such contention in Charan Singh v. Healing Touch Hospital & Others, III (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), the Court observed that the Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded in an established case which not only serve the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about the qualitative change in the attitude of service provider. The Court pertinently observed:
.
“It is not merely the alleged harm or mental pain, agony or physical discomfort, loss of salary and emoluments, etc. suffered by the appellant which is in issue—it is also the quality of conduct committed by the respondents upon which attention is required to be founded in a case of proven negligence.”
.
Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, it would be just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for mental pain and agony. This may serve the purpose of bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of the hospitals of providing service to the human beings as human beings. Human touch is necessary; that is their code of conduct; that is their duty and that is what is required to be implemented. In emergency or critical cases let them discharge their duty/social obligation of rendering service without waiting for fees or for consent.
.
For full details of the case, refer to Law Journal: II 2005 CPJ 35 (NC).
No comments:
Post a Comment