Mumbai, Aug 6 Maharashtra's consumer disputes commission has held a Mumbai hospital guilty of "deficiency in service" for delaying the discharge of a two-day-old child by over nine hours due to pending cashless medical insurance approvals and termed their conduct as "callous and insensitive" towards the newborn.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), in an order passed last month in the 2017 case, asked the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to the complainant and another Rs 10,000 towards the cost of litigation.
The panel stressed that officials of the private medical facility "should have allowed the baby boy to leave the hospital to join the company of his mother, but no such priority was given.
"The officials of Bhatia Hospital should have behaved in a sensitive manner to complete the process of discharge, but nothing of that sort has happened," the commission noted.
The state panel set aside a prior order of a District Consumer Commission, saying it took into account the rules of the discharge in a technical manner.
It was expected from the district commission to read between the lines while interpreting them (discharge rules), because the age of the child was only two days, said SCDRC.
According to the complainant, a Mumbai resident, his wife delivered twin boys on February 22, 2017.
After one of the newborns was detected with hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar), he was admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at Bhatia Hospital. The complainant deposited Rs 15,000 at the time of admission.
He claimed that on the morning of February 24, 2017, the treating paediatrician advised that the baby be discharged.
A discharge slip was prepared at 11:12 am containing specific instructions to release the patient, as the deposit amount was higher than the generated bill of Rs 13,515. However, the hospital staff withheld the baby's release, awaiting cashless approval from the insurance provider's Third Party Administrator (TPA), according to the complainant.
The cashless facility was ultimately rejected by the insurance provider, but despite the father's written undertaking that he would pay any outstanding amount within 24 hours of a TPA denial, the hospital delayed the release of the baby.
Additionally, it levied an extra half-day charge and only discharged the baby in the evening.
The state commission noted that a patient cannot be detained for want of bill clearance, particularly when the due amount is less than the deposit already held by the hospital.
"The hospital should have considered the deposit of the complainant and discharged his son immediately looking to his age and the anxiety of the mother of the baby," said SCDRC.
The state commission emphasised the behaviour of the opponent's officials "was callous and casual and insensitive towards the baby boy, who was two days old" , particularly since the complainant had given an undertaking he would pay the bill within 24 hours after the denial of the cashless facility."
Therefore, the quasi-judicial body was of the opinion that "the conduct and behaviour of the officials of the opponent (hospital) is nothing but the deficiency of service".
SCDRC asked the hospital to refund the excess billed amount of Rs 2,000 to the complainant, along with an interest of 6 per cent per year calculated from the date the consumer complaint was filed until its realization, besides Rs 25,000 compensation and Rs 10,000 towards the litigation cost.
