SHE is saddled with a $70,000 hospital bill after her maid had a fall.

And Madam Sally Tay is upset.

Especially since the maid hurt herself while she was sheltered by the maid agent and was not under her supervision, Madam Tay said.

However, the maid agency is arguing that although it was housing the maid at that time, the maid's work permit had not been cancelled then, and the employer has to take responsibility.

So who is liable?

Ms Sumiyati, 29, fell six storeys from a flat on 5 Feb and was hospitalised in National University Hospital (NUH) for 45days.

Madam Tay and the maid agency said she broke her legs and had to undergo several operations.

Ms Sumiyati had been Madam Tay's Indonesian domestic helper for nine months until 4 Feb.

Madam Tay, 29, a bank officer, claimed that Ms Sumiyati had acted weirdly at home that day.

'She chased after my elderly mother with a pen and kept reciting some words under her breath,' Madam Tay said.

She was at work then but rushed back when her mother called her.

'I was afraid for the safety of my mother and my 8-month-old son, so I called the police, who stayed with them until I got home.'

She showed us the police report.

That very day, Madam Tay decided to return Ms Sumiyati to Nora Employment Agency.

Madam Tay said she told Ms Sumiyati her decision and Ms Sumiyati had seemed 'normal' throughout the cab ride to the agency, showing no further unusual behaviour.

At the agency, Madam Tay and the agent agreed to repatriate the maid. They booked a flight for her to leave the country on 7 Feb.

It was the earliest date they could book, due to the Chinese New Year holidays, and the ticket was bought using the credit card of Mr Jag Ayub, the agent, with the understanding that Madam Tay would later pay him back.

But at around 3pm that same day, Mr Ayub sent Madam Tay an SMS message saying that he could not cancel the maid's work permit and asked Madam Tay to cancel the flight.

Although the flight had been booked with his card, Madam Tay said that he had wanted her to cancel it herself because she was the employer.

Mr Ayub, 45, told The New Paper that he changed his mind about repatriating Ms Sumiyati because he did not want to cause problems with his agent in Indonesia.

That was why he decided not to cancel the work permit until he found Ms Sumiyati a new employer.

Mr Ayub said: 'I initially thought it was okay to send her home, but realised it was not okay after consulting our licensee and training centre in Indonesia.'

Furthermore, he said, Ms Sumiyati had repeatedly told him she did not want to be sent home.

'If we sent her home against her will, she might complain to the training centre. We would then face the problem of them not providing more maids to us because they would think we were not taking good care of the maids,' Mr Ayub said.

He then arranged for the maid to stay at his flat at Teck Whye Lane that night.

It was at 10am the next day, 5 Feb, that Madam Tay received a call from Mr Ayub informing her that Ms Sumiyati had fallen six storeys from the flat's kitchen window.

How and why it happened is unclear.

Madam Tay said she also learnt that Ms Sumiyati was in critical condition and required several operations.

Ms Sumiyati was eventually discharged on 21 Mar and repatriated to Indonesia on that day with an escort. Madam Tay paid $2,000 for the repatriation.

Then, on 27 Mar, she got the medical bill from the hospital - which she also showed us - which came up to $70,350.

Madam Tay had bought a one-time insurance policy for the maid, which covered up to $5,000 of hospitalisation bills and $1,000 of in-patient hospital bills.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) requires all employers of foreign maids to get medical insurance for their employees. Coverage must be at least $5,000 a year for hospitalisation.

'When I got the bill, I cried,' Madam Tay said.

She said the hospital had informed her that when it sent the bill to the agency, it was returned with the message that the employer would bear the cost.

When Madam Tay called the agency, MrAyub's partner, Mr Syed Faizal, told her to foot the bill because she was the employer, she said.

Mr Syed had told her: 'You're the employer and her safety is your responsibility.'

Mr Syed told The New Paper that Madam Tay had returned Ms Sumiyati to the agency once before on 26 Jan, yet taken her back the next day.

He said: 'When she returned the maid to us on 4 Feb again, Ms Sumiyati's mental state was already very different from a week ago. She was not herself.'

Madam Tay said she returned Ms Sumiyati on 26 Jan because the maid's 'work attitude had started to change'. But she said Ms Sumiyati had readily agreed to work for her again.

Mr Syed said he had initially not wanted to accept Ms Sumiyati back on 4 Feb, but Madam Tay insisted.

He said: 'That day, she kept telling us that since we were the agency, we should give her lodging and we were responsible.

'We were doing her a service by sheltering the maid because no one else could.

'She (the maid) did something beyond our control, for which we cannot be held responsible.

'As long as the work permit is still under the employer's name, the employer is responsible until it is cancelled.'

That week after getting the bill, Madam Tay claimed she was so stressed that she came down with a fever.

'Where am I supposed to find that money?' she asked.

'It is not a small amount. Even if I am rich, am I liable and must I pay?'

Madam Tay insisted on the grounds that Ms Sumiyati was not in her care when the incident occurred.

'How could I have ensured she was safe? I didn't even know the agent's home address,' she said.