Rs 10 lakh fine on nursing home owner for posing as specialist
Kolkata: The West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission (WBCERC) on Monday imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on the owner of Heritage Nursing Home situated on Ripon Street for conducting delivery of a woman claiming herself to be a gynecologist.
WBCERC Chairperson Justice (retired) Ashim Kumar Banerjee said the accused has only an MBBS degree and she has therefore no right to claim herself as specialist doctor in gynecology. It was alleged that the operation carried out by the accused went wrong, leading the patient to go into coma.
The patient, Sultana Khatun, a resident of Amherst Street was admitted to the nursing home in November last year. It was alleged that after the surgery was performed the internal bleeding of the patient did not stop. The patient had to be admitted to another medium-scale private hospital in the city before being finally shifted to AMRI hospital. The patient had undergone treatment at AMRI for a few days but no major improvement took place. AMRI had asked to pay a bill of Rs 23 lakh out of which the patient's family members managed to pay Rs 10.5 lakh.
The patient was finally shifted to the SSKM Hospital as the family members
failed to arrange funds for continuing treatment at the AMRI. Presently, the patient is in a coma.
In another incident, the WBCERC has directed the Bidhannagar Police to probe into a case of alleged fraud. A 56-year-old man, Shyamal Kumar Roy—a resident of Belghoria in North 24-Parganas— went to Rich Fill Health and Beauty in Salt Lake for hair transplant. The authorities of the hair transplant clinic told Roy that he need not pay for hair transplant as the expenses would be paid by a private insurance company. The clinic then collected the details and some signed documents from Roy and made some transactions in his name.
The victim did not avail any treatment from the clinic but the private insurance company sent him correspondence asking to pay monthly installments of Rs 5,000 per month. When the victim sought a clarification, the clinic said they had received money from the insurance company. Whereas, the insurance company claimed that the transactions were made in the name of the victim. The clinic authorities did not turn up at the hearing of the Commission.
