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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
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

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more