Patient pays in court

Dr Sylvester Onzivua says: Medicine,  Law & YouIf the person wronged has suffered damage, court may award him compensation. PHOTO/ILLUSTRATION 

In 2018 a patient sued the Nairobi Women’s Hospital for unlawfully detaining her after she failed to fully pay her hospital bills. She had accumulated a bill of about KShs3m, of which she was only able to pay slightly above KShs1m. 

The hospital, as a result, did not allow her to go home, but continued to detain and bill her. In truth, it was only after a legal suit was instituted that the hospital allowed the patient to go home. By that time, the patient’s bill had accumulated to about KShs4m. The hospital filed a counter suit for recovery of the monies owed to it by the patient. 

This cross-petition was, however, opposed by the patient’s lawyers on the grounds that it was filed in the wrong court as it did not raise any constitutional issues.

Court ruled in favour of the patient in the main suit. Court was unequivocal on this matter; any form of detention not sanctioned by the law is illegal and stated that the hospital was not empowered under the law to hold any person within the hospital for failure to pay medical bills. 

Costs
The lawyers asked court to award the patient KShs10m as general damages and KShs5m as exemplary damages for unlawful detention and false imprisonment and pleaded to court to consider the duration and circumstances of her detention when compensating her.

Court noted if the person wronged has suffered damage, court may award him or her compensation but that such payment is discretionary in nature. 

Court was of the view that an award of compensation will go some distance towards vindicating the infringed constitutional right and needed to reflect the sense of public outrage, emphasise the importance of constitutional right and the gravity of the breach, and deter further breaches.

On the quantum of the damages, court considered the following;
• Damages should not be inordinately too high or too low.
• Should be commensurate to the injury suffered. 
• Should not be aimed at enriching the victim but should be aimed at restoring the victim to the position he or she was in before the damage was suffered.
• Awards in past decisions are mere guides and each case depends on its own facts.

Court reviewed a number of similar cases; in one such case a person who had been detained in a hotel for failure to clear his hotel bills was awarded KShs1m by court. In another case court awarded KShs12m for serious violation of human rights including torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and loss of liberty. A patient who was held in a hospital for seven days was awarded KShs100,000 by court as damages.

In this particular case Court ruled that the patient was unlawfully detained in a private hospital but there was no evidence that she was subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment although her detention was for a long period of time. The patient was awarded KShs3m as general damages.

Hospital bill
Court agreed with the patient that the debt she owed the hospital should not be pursued through constitutional petitions. Court was, however, of the view that in this particular case the hospital should not be asked to go and file a civil claim for the unpaid medical bill; this would be a waste of precious judicial time and resources and the parties would also incur unnecessary litigation expenses.

Court observed that the patient did not dispute the fact that she owed money to the hospital. What was, however, considered was the amount of money the patient owed the hospital at the time of her first discharge. 

To court the patient had no obligation to pay any expenses that may have been incurred by the hospital in connection with her unlawful detention. Court ruled that no person should be compensated for costs or expenses incurred in the commission and perpetuation of unconstitutional acts.

Court found merit in the cross-petition and entered judgment in favour of the hospital and ruled that the outstanding bill of the hospital should be recovered from the general damages awarded to the patient. And mercifully the court asked each party to meet their own costs of the proceedings.                                                      

To be continued...