THEY were charged one month's fees even though their late mother stayed in the nursing home for only one day.
This was because the Orange Valley Nursing Home imposes a minimum one month's charge for long-term residents.
The Ng family appealed for a rebate on the $1,940 bill and their request for a waiver has been granted.
Madam Ng Lee Yian, 52, a housewife, said the nursing home charged them for two weeks instead.
Their bill has been reduced to about $890 as a result. Madam Ng received the good news on Jun 17 - the same day The New Paper ran an article on her family's plight.
Happy with outcome
She said in Mandarin: 'My family is very happy with the outcome. We have no complaints because we think it's a reasonable reply (from the nursing home).'
Her mother, Madam Tan Kim Hong, 85, had stayed in the nursing home on Mar 23.
She was then moved to a hospital, where she died on Apr 1.
Madam Ng's brother-in-law, Mr Luo Jin Cheng, 31, an odd-job worker, had earlier told The New Paper that the family was willing to pay for 10 or 11 days, from the day his mother-in-law stayed in the nursing home to the day she died in hospital.
Madam Ng said the family was aware of the nursing home's policy requiring residents to pay a minimum of one month's fees even if the resident leaves after a shorter stay.
But, Mr Luo added, the family hoped for a pro-rated bill as 'this is an exceptional case'.
On 23 Mar, when their mother was admitted to the home, the family had paid $2,610 upfront.
After Madam Tan died, Madam Ng's husband called the home and asked for the fees to be pro-rated.
Madam Ng also made a few calls.
But both were told that the home would still charge them for one month.
On 14 Apr, they received a cheque of about $670 from the nursing home as a refund. That meant that the total bill chalked up was about $1,900 .
When they tried to appeal again, they said they were told to send the nursing home's management a letter explaining the situation.
The hospital social worker who helped them to write the letter asked that the nursing home consider pro-rating the fees 'on compassionate grounds' and 'in view of the unfortunate circumstances'.
On Jun 17, Madam Ng's younger sister received a call from the nursing home informing her that the family would be given an additional rebate.
They received a cheque of about $1,060 the next day. 'We think it's fair and we're very grateful to The New Paper,' she said. 'We're just glad the matter has been resolved.'
She said her family would split the refund among the five siblings who had contributed to their mother's nursing home fees and medical expenses.
When contacted, Orange Valley CEO Tan Soo Sam said the home accepts residents for both short-term and long-term stays.
In an e-mail reply, he wrote: 'We charge a minimum of two weeks' fee for short-term residents, and a minimum of one month's fees for long-term residents.'
The rationale for its minimum-charge policy is to 'encourage the guarantor or guardian to make careful, responsible and accountable decisions on admitting their parents or grandparents'.
It would also 'allow the nursing home sufficient time to help in settling down the elderly in the nursing home environment,' he said.
He added that the minimum charges also cover transportation, initial medical consultation, administrative documentation and miscellaneous costs.
Mr Tan said the nursing home reviews each appeal case on its own merit.
