Releasing the dead body: A hospital perspective

Dr Suganthi Iyer

A common problem faced by hospitals is whether or not the dead could be released, when bills are not cleared. It is illustrated below in a case law Mrs M vs ‘A’ hospital.

The complainant’s husband late Mr M was admitted to ‘A’ hospital on 2/11/1996 and later died on 3/12/1996 at around 10.45 am. The hospital conducted investigations and diagnosed that the deceased was having heart and kidney problem and needed surgery. The hospital fixed the date of surgery on 16/11/1996 and also the expenditure of hospitalisation and surgery at Rs 1,75,000. From the date of admission, the complainant paid an advance deposit for a week to ten days, a sum of Rs 1,50,000 in different installments.

After the death of late Mr M on 3/12/1996, the hospital asked the complainant to meet the chief security officer of the hospital and take possession of the body of the deceased. The said officer asked the complainant to get a clearance from the hospital billing section, before taking the body. The billing section asked the complainant to pay an additional sum of Rs 2,03,316 above the sum of Rs 1,50,000, already paid by the complainant. They refused to release the dead body until the additional sum was paid.

The day, previous to the death of her husband on 3/12/1996, the complainant was asked to pay only Rs 50,000 for a further period of one week to ten days. Only the previous evening, when the hospital demanded Rs 50,000, the complainant was shocked and surprised how the amount reached Rs 2,03,316 overnight.

Only after receiving an additional sum of Rs 1,90,000 through the State Bank of India, the hospital released the body of the complainant’s husband on 4/12/1996 at around 6 pm. Because of the delay, the complainant had to cancel the crematorium arranged on 3/12/1996 at Kilpauk electric crematorium. The funeral rites and cremation were performed at the Triplicate cemeteries grounds in dark and wretched conditions.

The main allegations of the complainant was that the dead body of the complainant’s husband was not released soon after death, but held as a ransom for the additional amount claimed by the hospital. Because of one day delay in the release of the dead body, the body could not be cremated at Kilpauk Crematorium and the whole family starved for 40 hours as per the custom prevalent in their family.

In this case, the complainant’s husband late Mr M was admitted with a history of long standing hypertension for 18 years and an attack of myocardial infarction in the year 1981. Since 1995, he had renal failure secondary to hypertension. Since 1996, he suffered from recurrent episodes of pulmonary oedema.

According to the complainant, the deceased had heart and kidney problems and needed surgery. The complainant alleged that the doctors must have foreseen the possibility of heart attack and should have done the surgery within two weeks, in which case her husband would not have died.

The investigation by the hospital revealed renal failure, severe triple vessel coronary artery disease and severe left ventricle dysfunction.

The patient was not a fit case for immediate surgery. Renal dialysis was taken up to prepare him and make him fit for bypass surgery. On 14/11/1996, the patient had a cardiac arrest, from which he was revived and all the necessary treatment was given by a panel of expert doctors.

The policy or rule of any private or government hospital is that before a patient is discharged, the hospital bills must be settled either by the patient himself or by his relatives.

In this case, the complainant who is the wife of the deceased was asked to settle the bills. The hospital or doctor can be held guilty of negligence or deficiency of service, only when they fall short of standard of reasonable medical care in relation to the treatment of the patient admitted under their care.

Asking the complainant to settle the bills before release of the body cannot be considered as negligence or deficiency of service. For the above mentioned reasons, the bench held that the complainant has failed to prove any negligence of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party hospital.

This point was found in favour of the hospital. The complainant failed to prove any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the hospital. The complainant was dismissed without costs.

The writer is assistant director, medical services and legal at PD Hinduja Hospital, Mumbai. Email-drsiyerin@yahoo.co.in