Court orders hospital to pay BD11,000 debt for unpaid medical supplies

TDT | Manama

Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com

A hospital that received more than BD11,000 worth of medical supplies but refused to pay has been ordered by the court to settle the debt.

This came after failing to dispute its own signatures and stamps on purchase documents despite trying to discredit them as mere photocopies.

The supplier took the matter to court, arguing that the hospital had placed the orders, accepted delivery, and signed off on the paperwork, yet failed to pay what was owed.

In response, the hospital tried to cast doubt on the documents, claiming they were only photocopies and should not be relied upon. But the court dismissed this line of defence, pointing out that the hospital had not actually denied the signatures or stamps linked to its staff.

Unpaid bill

Lawyer Abdulrahman Ghonaim, representing the supplier, said the company had delivered the medical supplies as requested but had been left with an unpaid bill of BD11,374.

Despite reminders, the hospital did not settle the amount, forcing the company to take legal action.

It sought a ruling compelling the hospital to pay the full sum, plus 10 percent interest from the date of the claim until full repayment, along with legal fees and court costs.

Agreement

To support its case, the supplier presented a copy of a credit facility agreement for up to BD15,000, with a 60-day repayment period, signed and stamped by the hospital’s authorised signatory.

It also submitted purchase orders showing the hospital had requested the supplies, as well as invoices confirming delivery.

These, too, bore signatures from hospital staff acknowledging receipt, along with official stamps. A copy of a formal demand for payment, sent to the hospital, was also submitted.

Legal weight

The hospital’s lawyer countered by rejecting all photocopies and documents, arguing they had no legal weight and asking the court to throw out the case. The supplier’s representative, however, pointed out that the hospital had not directly denied any of the signatures or stamps.

If necessary, the supplier was prepared to present original documents.

Evidence

The court referred to a ruling from the Court of Cassation, stating that a private document stands as evidence against its signatory unless the signature is explicitly denied or alleged to be forged.

The judges noted that the hospital’s defence rested entirely on dismissing photocopies, without actually disputing the signatures or stamps attributed to its representatives.

The hospital had also not contested its contractual ties with the supplier, nor had it denied receiving the supplies.

Rejection of documents A general rejection of documents, the court said, was not enough. Under Article 13 of the Evidence Law, a private document is deemed valid unless there is a clear denial of the handwriting, signature, stamp, or fingerprint.