Do you have to pay for a dissatisfactory medical service? [closed]

Question

I went to a hospital and they charged me $5,000. The doctor was absolutely incompetent and due to his fault, the result of the procedure were bad. I am on my way to healing, but it was NOT good. I will not go into details, but the doctor “F...ED UP”, and he knows it. Of course he will never officially admit it, and try to fight back covering his a....

Any way, even though the results were not the best, I don’t want to fight. I just switched to another doctor. But at the same time, I feel like it’s unfair if I pay the $5,000. There is principle involved. I don’t want to pay for incompetent service. Do I have to? What are my options?

Answer 1

I don’t want to pay for an incompetent service. Do I have to? What are my options?

Regardless of the legislative specifics of your jurisdiction regarding medical malpractice, your description sounds in a possible claim of breach of contract.

This is a fact-intensive matter. The amount (if any) you would have to pay depends on the medical details at issue. However, the lack of details in your description prevents us from assessing whether the main purpose of the procedure was attained even if it led to unforeseen side effects. Likewise, the statement "the results were not the best" is a milder phrasing of "the result[s] of the procedure were bad". That ambiguity requires us to speculate about the extent of physician's incompetence/wrongdoing as well as his viable defenses.

If you take him to court, be prepared to elaborate and submit evidence on the matter rather than relying on the generic phrase "there is a principle involved".

Answer 2

You have to pay the bill

Unless there was a “complete and utter failure of consideration” from the doctor (i.e. they didn’t do anything) then you must fulfill your side of the contract and pay the bill.

If the doctor has performed their obligations negligently then you can sue for damages (which might include the fees if your new doctor) but you still have to pay them for what they did do.

The leading case law on this (exact case escapes my memory) in australia relates to a cruise ship that sunk off New Zealand halfway through the cruise. While the passengers were entitled to damages for their losses, they were not entitled to refunds because the service had been (partially) provided.