The main problem is that in accordance with Article 29 of the Law “On Consumer Protection” the patient is given the right to choose the method of eliminating the lack of service. One of such ways is “reimbursement of expenses incurred by him to eliminate the shortcomings of the work performed (services rendered) by their own forces or by third parties.”
Having received an inexpensive service in a clinic, economy class or at an economical rate, the patient can go to eliminate the shortcomings in an elite premium clinic or at an elite rate, and then recover the cost of treatment. Appeals of the medical organization to the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, integrity, seldom cause understanding at judges. The judge does not have a medical education, so he simply does not know what treatment is required and what its cost may be, so they accept the treatment plan presented by the patient. The victim clinic can provide the court with convincing evidence that the same services of the same quality can be obtained at a much lower price. But it is useless. Because the patient has the right to choose a doctor and a medical organization. And he will definitely tell the court that he has suffered enough in an economy-class clinic or at an economy rate and no longer wants to risk his health.
It is almost impossible to prove in court that the patient himself chose an inexpensive, conservative, least invasive treatment plan and did not consent to radical treatments. The patient is not a specialist, he can not know the consequences of a particular method of treatment, probable outcomes and complications. Judicial practice shows that even with the proven full information of the patient and the presence of the IDS signed by the patient, the responsibility for the adverse outcome still rests with the doctor.
If the doctor has offered the patient a reliable but expensive treatment plan, he may be accused of trying to get rich through the patient’s trust, that is, dishonest behavior.
The mechanism of compensation of the expenses connected with elimination of a lack of service is imperfect. The patient simply receives the amount won in court. He can then dispose of it at his discretion. He can give up some rehabilitation measures, find an inexpensive treatment option and not even do anything at all – continue to live with the existing shortcoming. Especially if the significance of the shortcoming was greatly exaggerated by him.
This motivates unscrupulous citizens to get rich illegally. If the law prescribed that the consumer be reimbursed only for the costs actually incurred, and by transferring to the account of the organization that eliminated the lack of service, and not to the personal account of the patient, the situation with consumer extremism would be different.
