PATIENTS requiring urgent medical treatment at Fiji’s public hospitals cannot be required to make upfront payments or provide guarantees of payment before receiving treatment because they cannot afford the money or are poor, the Supreme Court has ruled in a landmark judgement.
The court has ruled in favour of a family whose relative was denied dialysis treatment because he could not pay.
The August 28 judgment was delivered by Justice Terence Arnold, with Justice Lowell Goddard and Justice Geoffrey Nettle agreeing with his reasoning and orders.
The case was brought by Rajesh Chandra, administrator of the estate of his late son, against the permanent secretary for Health, Ministry of Health and attorney-general.
Mr Chandra’s son suffered from chronic kidney disease and was admitted to Lautoka Hospital in June 2011. The court heard that while dialysis was available, the hospital would not provide it unless payment was made.
Justice Arnold said the Public Hospitals and Dispensaries Act, properly interpreted, did not allow hospitals to require payment before treating patients admitted because of urgency or poverty.
“Persons admitted under either category cannot be required to make an upfront payment, or to give a guarantee of payment, for their treatment,” Justice Arnold said.
He found Mr Chandra’s son fell within the category of a person needing prompt treatment and said there was no statutory basis for withholding short-term dialysis because he could not afford it.
“This was not only a breach of the PHD Act – it was a failure by the medical staff involved to meet the duty of care which the common law places upon them,” Justice Arnold said.
Justice Arnold concluded that the medical staff were negligent in failing to provide necessary treatment on a lawful basis.
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and set aside the decisions of both the Court of Appeal and High Court.
The matter has been remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages.
The permanent secretary for Health, the Ministry of Health and the attorney-general were ordered to pay $20,000 in costs for the High Court proceedings, $15,000 for the Court of Appeal and $15,000 for the Supreme Court proceedings.
