Skip to main content

Hospitals have become shops, Bombay high court says

Most hospitals have become shops, said the HC on Friday, decrying the alleged refusal by Marol's SevenHills Hospital to release a patient over non-payment of bills.

A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice P D Kode heard a petition by Sanjay Prajapati for directing the police to get his brother Chinku discharged, saying the hospital had refused to do so until pending bills are paid up. He also urged action against the hospital's doctors and staff. Prajapati had disputed the pending bill, calling it erroneous.

Public prosecutor Sandeep Shinde told the HC that after operating on the patient in March, he was kept at the hospital for post-operative care due to lack of nursing care at home. "The hospital is willing to discharge him now," he said.

The hospital's advocate said the allegations are false and the petition "filed simply because the petitioner has no money to pay the dues". He added, "It is the patient who is not going home. We are ready to discharge him today.''

Prajapati's advocate Diwakar Dwivedi said his client wanted to shift Chinku to another hospital. "They were not allowing him to be taken away."

The judges have directed Prajapati to join the Medical Council of India and Maharashtra Medical Council as parties "to come and tell the court how this should be resolved". They also asked the Association of Hospitals to be impleaded. The judges said even if the matter is over, the court will go into the issue and lay down guidelines. The judges said that public hospitals too behave in a similar manner. The hospital gave an undertaking that Chinku would be discharged during the course of the day.

But till late in the evening, the family was yet to take the patient home. CEO of SevenHills Hospital Anand Garg said discharge formalities had been completed. "They may be making arrangements to take him. Everything is clear from our side," Garg said. The matter will be heard after two weeks.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Hospitals-have-become-shops-Bombay-high-court-says/articleshow/36505651.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more