Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court earlier this week sought the Delhi government’s reply in a plea by Moolchand Hospital for payment of bills of around Rs 52 lakh in treating an 84-year-old woman admitted to the hospital with advanced Alzheimer’s disease since 2017.

The bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued notice to the Delhi government and posted the matter for further hearing on November 6.

The court was dealing with the hospital’s application filed in a pending 2019 plea pertaining to the appointment of a guardian for the woman.

Dr Sundri G Bhagwanani, a gynaecologist from New York, was brought to the hospital in 2017 by her brother. But he died during the pendency of his plea seeking to be appointed as the guardian of his ailing sister to take care of her medical bills and overall health.

"The woman has Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) with the State Bank of India with a cumulative value of Rs 1,05,64,506 as of January 10, 2020; due to various payments made to the hospital, the same has substantially reduced", the court had earlier noted. 

The high court on May 24 had appointed the Southeast Delhi district magistrate as the woman’s “limited guardian” and also ordered that a nodal officer be appointed by the Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS) to look after her and to take decisions in tandem with the guardian.

While asking the district magistrate to operate the woman’s bank account and release the money required to the hospital for her treatment, the court had said, “With respect to the pending bills, the district magistrate is directed to decide as to what is the outstanding amount payable to the hospital and he would be at liberty to direct for release of the admissible amount in favour of respondent no 2- Moolchand Hospital”.

Notably, in October last year, taking note of her brother’s demise and that there was “no legal guardian appointed” at the time and medical bills were mounting, the court had appointed an advocate as an amicus curiae in the matter to act as the woman’s “guardian” till further directions.

The hospital claimed in its application that it never refused the woman treatment but that "at this relevant point in time" it was essential that the costs totalling Rs 51,97,329 be paid right away so that the amenities supplied and the medical care for her may continue without interruption. The woman had to be transferred to the ICU because her condition had deteriorated further, it said. On August 28, the district magistrate was informed, according to the hospital.

The hospital also claimed that the government’s “Department of Social Welfare, without any authority or jurisdiction or direction” from the HC, issued a “recommendation/decision” for providing medical services to the patient at “Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS)/ (EWS)Economically Weaker Section Rates rates”.

It further stated that the woman is not eligible for CGHS rates, since that is only provided to persons who are working with CGHS organisations having a contract with Moolchand Hospital. Furthermore, it said that the woman is a US citizen and the “rates applicable for international patients are different”, and the hospital has already accommodated her for a lesser amount and it would not be possible for it to reduce the rates to the CGHS/EWS category.

Case Title: Mohan G Bhagwanani v. The Manager, State Bank of India & Ors.