Wednesday, March 28, 2018

RM 2,830 lost for not wanting to proceed with radiotherapy


Posted on by CA Care 
               
TT was diagnosed with cervical cancer. She underwent an operation to remove her uterus, ovaries and omentum. She was then referred to an oncologist who recommended both chemotherapy and radiotherapy. TT was not at peace at all about undergoing these invasive treatments but she did not have any other choice. She consulted with the oncologist three times and was assured that everything would be okay and that chemo and radiation were her only option — nothing else. During her second meeting with her oncologist, TT was told to pay RM 13,000 as a deposit for her radiation treatment.

Someone told TT about CA Care. TT and her husband decided to forgo further medical treatments. TT went back to hospital and cancelled her appointment for her radiotherapy. What then happened to the RM 13,000 deposit?  Can TT get a refund? Listen to this video.

Gist of what TT and her husband said.
  1. They were angry. Why don’t you want to go for radiotherapy? We are still unprepared!
  2. For your RM 13,000 deposit, we could only refund you RM 4,500. The remaining amount is forfeited.
  3. Why must I lose that much money for just not wanting to go for radiotherapy? We have not started with any treatment yet?
  4. Husband started to take pictures of the person. When I go back to Indonesia, I shall report this to the mass media
  5. Okay, okay be patient. Let me consult.
  6. You have to pay for the oncologist’s fee — RM1,700 and the cancer hospital fee is RM 6,000 plus.
  7. The treatment has not even started yet. Why so expensive? It was only the nurse who made some markings. We did not even see the doctor yet.
  8. TT and her husband was referred to the finance department. They demanded to know: Why must I lose so much money just to cancel the treatment? Your hospital comes to Indonesia for publicity. What I can do is to go home and tell the press about this. Okay, you can have your RM 8000 plus, return me my RM 4,500. It is okay. I am not a poor man. I can come to Penang for treatment means I can afford it.
  9. The hospital called up the cancer hospital and after some discussion said: Hang on for 10 minutes. We have miscalculated.
  10. The actual figure: RM 2,830 to be forfeited to cover the following cost:
HospitalBill Tiu Tjin Tjhin

Question: Do you mean that by just asking a patient to go for radiotherapy the oncologist earned RM1,700 up front?  Even when no treatment was given?

When you saw the oncologist three times for consultation, did you pay him any fee? Yes, of course, we paid him RM 60 for each visit.

So, this RM1,700 is over and above his consultation fee.
The hospital earned RM 1,130 for putting marks on my tummy!

Comment

We have nothing much to say about this episode. Just feeling sad. Reflect on the quotations below and perhaps we all can learn something about the present-day “so-called-noble-profession.”
Medicine a business
As I was writing this story, there is this news report … if there is anything we can learn from this story it this: Before you proceed with any treatment, ask these important questions first:
  1. Can the treatment cure me or not?
  2. What are the risks and side effects?
  3. What will that cost me in total — financially and emotionally?
Don’t get caught up with the idea of wanting to only win. Know that you can lose the “battle” badly as well. In this case below: Imagine, daughter had an operation, (did the parents ask — can cure or not? can win?), then she was paralyzed, hospital bills came to more than RM 2 million !!!, parents declared bankrupt (besides the frustration and heartaches). That is not wining at all. So patients, beware.

Penang Adventist Hospital ordered to pay couple RM6 million

FMT Reporters:  July 15, 2015

See more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2015/07/15/penang-hospital-ordered-to-pay-couple-rm6-million/#sthash.HiQCSfF3.dpuf

The couple were earlier declared bankrupt after they could not pay the hospital RM2.35 million in unsettled medical bills.

GEORGE TOWN: The Penang High Court has ordered the Penang Adventist Hospital (PAH), a private centre, to pay RM6,023,802 in damages to the parents of a 18-year-old paralyzed girl.

The victim’s parents, Kee Boon Suan and his wife Ang Mooi Sim from Nibong Tebal, filed the suit three years ago. The High Court had ordered the couple in 2011 to settle RM2,350,013.85 due to the hospital in unpaid bills. The court order led the couple to be declared bankrupt.

In his verdict on the medical negligence suit here on Tuesday, Judicial Commissioner Nordin Hassan said he found PAH and three doctors had committed medical negligence during a spinal surgery performed on Kee Jun Hui on June 4, 2008.

He said the patient’s parents were also not briefed by the doctors-in-charge on the surgery details.

He said the hospital was responsible for the negligence acts by the doctors-in-charge and nurses, who had breached their duties and duty of care to the patient.

Nordin said PAH orthopedic surgeons Dr. Cheok Chee Yew and Dr. Wong Chung Chek neglected their duties after performing the surgery on Jun Hui.

He said the patient had collapsed several times during the post-surgery recovery period while still under the hospital’s custody.
He said anesthetist Dr. Patrick K. S. Tan neglected his duties and failed to instruct hospital nurses to attend to the collapsed patient after being informed of Jun Hui’s inability to move her limbs.

M.S. Dhillon, Rhina Bhar and K.B. Karthi represented the plaintiffs while Mahindra Singh Gill acted for the hospital.

All three doctors were represented by legal counsel J. A. Yeoh.
Mahindra later told newsmen that PAH would appeal against Nordin’s judgment at the Court of Appeal.

In 2011, PAH originally hauled Kee and Ang to court for failure to settle their medical bill for Jun Hui’s surgery.

In 2012, the couple sued the hospital for medical negligence, as their daughter was paralyzed after the surgery.

The hospital was named the first defendant in the suit followed by Cheok, Patrick Tan and Wong.

No comments: