Public hospitals cannot refuse urgent medical treatment to patients because they are unable to make an upfront payment or guarantee payment, following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court made the ruling in favour of Rajesh Chandra, administrator of the estate of his late son, who had taken legal action against the Permanent Secretary for Health, the Ministry of Health and the Attorney-General.
Chandra's son who was 33-years-old suffered from moderate chronic kidney disease stage 3 and was admitted to Lautoka Hospital in June 2011.
The medical evidence at trial was that the 33-year-old man's condition had deteriorated to the point that he would need life-time dialysis treatment, although short-term dialysis treatment could prolong his life sufficiently to enable him to go to India for further testing and treatment that was available locally at the CWM Hospital and that the man was denied access to treatment because neither him nor his family could meet or guarantee to meet the costs involved.
In the judgement delivered, Justice Terence Arnold ruled that under the Public Hospitals and Dispensaries Act, patients admitted to public hospitals because they require urgent treatment or because of poverty cannot be required to pay upfront or provide a guarantee of payment before receiving treatment.
Justice Arnold found that Chandra's son required treatment and there was no legal basis for withholding short-term dialysis because he could not afford to pay for it.
He also found that the failure to provide the necessary treatment was not only a breach of the Public Hospitals and Dispensaries Act but also a failure by the medical staff involved to meet their common law duty of care.
Chandra was represented by Niven Padarath from Samual Ram Lawyers.
The case has been sent back to High Court for damages to be assessed.
