Cuttack District Commission Holds Apollo Hospitals Liable For Non-Disclosure Of Estimated Treatment Expenses

Brief Facts:

Mr. Ramesh Chandra Pattanaik's (“Complainant”) wife sustained a leg injury and was eventually transferred to Apollo Hospital (“Hospital”) in Bhubaneswar, after changing 2 Hospitals. The Hospital charged Rs. 10,000/- as an admission fee from the Complainant. The Complainant's wife was then moved to the ICU and stayed there for six days. She underwent various transfers within the Hospital, including stints in the HDU and Semi-Private ward. The Hospital in total charged Rs. 87,050/- from the Complainant as room rent. Further, during the treatment, the Complainant had limited opportunities to discuss the wife's condition with the treating doctor. Despite multiple requests, the Hospital did not disclose the fee structure, and the Complainants were later informed that the operation couldn't be performed due to the high TLC, and they were waiting for it to normalize. The Complainants expressed their financial constraints, and after discussions with the Hospital, it was suggested to shift his wife elsewhere. The treating doctor wanted to observe the wife for seven days to see if the TLC rate would decrease.

Later, the Complainant's wife was shifted from the ICU to the cabin, where she developed an itching problem. One doctor instructed the nursing staff to administer the "Spectra" drug, but the Complainant's wife became unconscious after its administration. When the matter was brought to the doctor's notice, he advised the Complainant to take her elsewhere. Three days later, it came to the Complainant's knowledge that all treatments were stopped, nursing services were suspended, and no medication was given to his wife, who was in a traumatic condition. Later, she was discharged from the Hospital and admitted to another E-24 Hospital at Puri, where she eventually passed away. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Odisha (“District Commission”).

The Complainants specifically question the necessity of 782 gloves, claiming a charge of Rs. 4,681/-, purportedly used by the Hospital staff. According to them, despite charges being levied for doctor/staff visits, there was a lack of actual visits to the patient. Furthermore, the Complainants drew attention to the remarks and endorsements made by the treating staff and doctors in the patient's records, emphasizing that charges were imposed despite the absence of actual visits or attendance.

In response, the Hospital contended that the Complainant did not approach the District Commission with clean hands. The Hospital claimed that despite requiring surgery, they stabilized the Complainant's wife through hemodialysis, antibiotics, and other treatments in the ICU. The Hospital contended that doctors and nursing staff regularly visited the patient about twice a day, maintaining progress sheets and bed-head tickets. It asserted that counselling sessions with the attendants occurred regularly, addressing the wife's condition, the next course of action, and financial expenses on two occasions.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that while the Family Meeting Record indicated discussions about the wife's condition and the potential shift to another Hospital, it did not explicitly mention the financial aspects or provide a clear estimate of the expenses involved in the clinical surgery. Acknowledging the Hospital's ability to diagnose the Complainant's wife's disease, the District Commission questioned why the Hospital did not provide an estimated expenditure for her treatment.

The District Commission emphasized the responsibility of healthcare providers, particularly those of good reputation, to furnish approximate expenditure details, bringing clarity to the patient's family about the anticipated expenses. Therefore, the District Commission held while not disclosing vital information to the Complainant about the expenditure, the Apollo Hospital violated the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.

The District Commission further noted that the lack of transparency in providing estimated treatment expenses undermines the trust between healthcare providers and patients' families. Therefore, the District Commission held the Hospital liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in services and directed the Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/- to the Complainants towards their mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Pattanaik and others and Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd and others.

Case No.: C.C.No.96/2020

Advocate for the Complainant: B.S. Das

Advocate for the Respondent: M.K. Mohanty

Click Here To Read/Download The Order