FREE TREATMENT

Evening Post, Volume CXXXI, Issue 100, 30 April 1941, Page 11

FREE TREATMENT

BOARD MEMBER'S CLAIM

The principle whether a member of a hospital board should receive free hospital treatment in return for his services rendered gratuitously as a board member was ' discussed at the Auckland Hospital Board meeting on Monday. It was raised by Mr. G. T. Parvin, the member concerned in the issue, when a report was presented by the finance committee.

The report stated that the AuditorGenerarhad advised that, if the board recognised Mr. Parvin's claim to setoff the fees payable oy him against the services rendered and acted accordingly, it would be to the board paying for su,ch services, and the Hospitals and Charitable Institutions Act. 1926, did not permit the board to pay for services rendered by members. A subsequent letter had been received asking what action the board proposed to take to collect the moneys due.

The finance committee recommended that Mr. Parvin be advised that if he did not effect a settlement of the fees owing by him within seven days the matter would 'be referred to the board's solicitors for the necessary action. "WILL CONTEST DECISION." Mr. Parvin said he appreciated the committee's position, but he could say quite definitely that he had no intention of paying the fees. "I will contest this decision, which I consider an imposition,", he said, after referring to the services he had rendered to the board. "It has cost me at least £50 a year to go about attending to the board's business and it is an in- j suit to ask a member to pay £15 for j hospital fees. Like other board members I have.helped to save it hundreds of pounds."

The chairman, Mr. Allan J. Moody, said he was in complete agreement with Mr. Parvin's attitude. The.board did not intend to ask for payment, but was compelled by the Auditor-General to take this action. "I hope you will contest the case and give the board a good thrashing," he added. \ "It is not a question of law, but of common sense."

Mr. J. Sayegh said he disagreed with .the chairman's criticism of the Audi-tor-General. He had every sympathy with Mr. Parvin, but the law had to be carried out and that was the official's duty.

The committee's report was adopted