Counseu: Dr. Mf, Ehrlich for plaintft, Before Judge P. Grant Jone (Gudgment for $900 and cost June 2 A civil case in which a doctor sued his patient for $200, the cost of a /surgieal operation, in H. M. Supreme [Court yesterday ' before Judge P. JGrant Jones provided many interosting highlights, the most noteworthy of which was' the fact that the defendant, Mr, H. Wyatt, did not stress his inability to pay this feo but that he was against payment on a matter of principle. "It was his contention hat the fee of $900 was an exhorbitant one for the removal of what he called a "glorified wart, The plaintiff in the case wa A. W., Kneueker. an associate of Dr.
Gouper Patrick. the Medical Superintendent of the Shanghai Gen eral Hospital. While Mtr. Wyatt con-Gucted his own defence. the plaintiff was represented by Dr. Mi. Ehrlich, JJudgment for $300 and costs was Fendered in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant declared his altruls. tie motives at the close of his defence in which he stated. "Your Lordship. whichever way this case goes—tor against me—I hope that it may serve to. warn others, and perhap# induce hospital authorities to take steps to safeguard poor, worried and) medically ignorant patients from mnecessry "expense "and exploit During an examination by: his own. counsel in court yesterday. Dr. Kneucker revealed that the operation had taken place at the Shanghai General Hospital on October 22. 1940, and consisted of the removal of a carcinoma (kin cancer) from the neck of the patient by means of an electric knife. Following this. the post-operative treatment took about three weeks.
Dr, Patrick was next. to testify. being called as the plaintiffs witness, He said that he remembered Mr. Wyatt saying that he would be-unable to pay for an expensive treatment. 'Witness said that he had also. assured the patient that he would not the charged too highly. 'But witness also declared that the patient was Ware of the fact that Dr. Kneucker' fee would the separate from the hospital account.
'A disagreement arose over the last-mentioned point. the defendant stating that there had been no specific mention of fees between him and Dr, Patrick, "At the same time, Dri Patrick' denied" that "he "and Dr, Kneucker were pariners; his intro: duction of patients to Dr. Kneucke? was only. a friendly arrangement, condueling his defence, the de-fondant declared that lig had visived the, General Hospital as Sri outpatient and throughout his treatment he: Was tinder' the Impression that he was being treated by the hospital star; hig. stated emphatically that. he. was aware of he fact hat De eneuker Wag not on the paid state. pointing fut that the plainti was in the' hose pital when De. Patrick took him (the defendant) to see Dr. Xeneucker.
"The defendant stated that the only reason for him to remove the "glorified wart" was that it was unsightly. But later when Ne was informed that a radlimeneedie. treatment "Would Gast about $100, he declined to take the treatment, saying that at Is age. 65" years. such a disfigurement Was not of very. great consequence, Cheaper treatment. way then suggest: ed him. "(This wag later followed by Prior to tile lor to this, Dr, Herz) Assistant Medienl Omer' of the General Bos pital, had out off a small piece of the tatelnoma for laboratory examination According {0 the defendant, Dr, Here nad rematiced, "1 might as well have cut itvall out" The defendant, then faked Dz. Herz why he did not {that and the latter had replied thet was unable to do so as he had Seen sven orders to bthin.a sample was the defendant's contention that throughout the. treatment. from Dr, Patrick's handy to the operation by' Dr. Kneucker, he had indicated that he could not afford an expensive treatment. "Sut." the defendant stated, "E_was badgered. from "ons Hospital to another. handled by "no less than five different doctors and led. into" quite unnecessary' expense and worry™cowed by the very name 'The defendant revealed in court that'"a. basal cell eatelnoma "wi a cancer' of the "lowest malls hoo had® discovered "that fre" would "have little trouble. ov itLexeopt that it Was unsightly. cannot umderstana why Dr. Here was for allowed to frush the. operation hho commenced." the defendant said. trying to show thab it was unnoce sary to call' Im an outside. doctor perform the operation, Gross-examined by plaintiff's coune to why the defendant' had {aken' a second class bed it it was 'Beyond his means, Mr. Wyatt replied that, firstly, he dia not want to stay overnight in preparation for an early morning. operation but that he had finally" given way to De. Keneueker's instructions. and' secondly, that since hho ad to slay. in-hospital, tis wife had insisted that he take a second class bed because of hig aye and 'Auge it was for only one ight 'Plsintis course) declared that In his opinion this was not a satisfactory explanation and' that. the defendant Should have taken a third close bed. On behalf of the plainti, he asked for judgment and costs, He also quested In court that the names the principals. in the ase yup pressed from publication, but flits Piiction was Fetused by Judge Grant ones
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.