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

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...
Post a Comment
Read more