03 January 2024 Human Right Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

A man who fought for over a decade to get reimbursed for his mother's emergency medical bills has finally won his case. The court ruled in favor of the son, stating that his mother's critical condition and advanced age justified seeking treatment at the nearest hospital, even though it was not on the approved list.

Background:

The son's mother, a recipient of a family pension, suffered a head injury and was rushed to Paras Hospital, the closest facility. The hospital's records documented the emergency nature of the admission. However, the authorities only reimbursed a portion of the first bill and denied reimbursement for subsequent admissions due to a lack of proven emergencies.

Ruling Emphasizes Right to Health in Emergencies:

The court emphasized the importance of the right to health, especially in emergency situations. The judges acknowledged that delaying treatment to follow protocol for seeking permission from designated authorities could be life-threatening for a patient in critical condition.

Critical Condition and Age Considered:

The court also considered the specific circumstances of the case. The son's mother was elderly and faced complications after the initial surgery. The judges highlighted the unpredictable nature of recovery for older patients and the difficulty of assessing their condition at a later stage. This justified seeking immediate treatment at the nearest facility, even if it was not on the approved list.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that the authorities' insistence on following strict procedures in an emergency was overly technical. They criticized the lack of evidence to refute the hospital's emergency certifications for the subsequent admissions. As a result, the court ordered the authorities to reimburse the full amount of the medical bills, minus the initial payment, along with interest.

Importance of Compassionate Approach:

This case highlights the need for a more compassionate approach from authorities when dealing with medical reimbursement claims, particularly for emergencies and elderly patients. The court's decision reinforces the right to health and the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case.