The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Mohali has directed a private hospital to refund the “over-charged” amount paid by a Mohali resident during the Covid-19 treatment of her husband in 2021.
Samarjit Kaur, wife of Manpreet Singh, a resident of Mohali, alleged that her husband, Manpreet Singh, who was 59 years old, was admitted at Mayo Hospital, Sector 69, Mohali, for treatment on May 8, 2021, and he was found corona positive and admitted to the Covid 19 Isolation Ward.
He, however, died during treatment in the hospital on May 19, 2021. Following which, the hospital and its directors issued a bill to the complainants for Rs 8,43,500 and the same was duly deposited by the complainants.
However, after the death of the deceased, the complainants checked the bill summary and found that the hospital has overcharged for treatment. Thereafter, the complainants approached the hospital and its directors for their unfair trade practice, but they ignored the complainants’ plea and refused to pay any heed to their request, in spite of the clear guidelines issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, dated March 8, 2021.
Kaur, through her counsel Kulwinder Singh, argued that as per the government notification, dated March 8, 2021, the approved rates for moderate sickness, that was Rs 9,000 per day and for ICU with ventilator Rs 16,500 per day. The deceased was kept in isolation bed for 10 days and ICU for two days as per guidelines of the government of Punjab, the total payable amount should have been Rs 1,23,000 only. The hospital overcharged Rs 7,20,500, which is against the government fixed rates.
On Kaur’s complaint, while none appeared for the Mayo Healthcare Super Specialty Hospital, the three directors of the hospital submitted in reply that they had nothing to do with the treatment and billing of patient, and have been unnecessarily dragged into the controversy. Also, the complainant intentionally misled the commission with regard to the guidelines issued by the government of Punjab, dated March 8, 2021, as the said guidelines are only applicable to the patient referred by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, for territory care in case of emergency.
“The super- specialty hospitals are having extra ordinary facilities which are more expensive than other ordinary hospitals. Therefore, the charges they charge are higher than others. The charges were explained in detail at the time of admission to the hospital,” it was submitted by the directors in reply.
Story continues below this ad
The hospital directors said that the notification, dated March 8, 2021, is only applicable in case of patient referred by the Health Department Punjab, to the hospital, whereas, deceased Manpreet Singh was not referred by the department. Hence, the said rates are not applicable on the treatment provided to Manpreet Singh.
The directors stated that they have also filed a case at the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh, on account of oppression and mismanagement of the affairs of the company, and thus the majority stakeholders and directors be impleaded as party to the present dispute for the just and proper adjudication of the present case.
On hearing the matter, the commission held that though the deceased was not referred by the government to the Mayo hospital, however, the only difference between the patients referred by the government and those self-reporting patients availing treatment at private hospital is that the patients referred by the government are to be reimbursed the expenses incurred as per chart mentioned in the relevant circular while the self-reporting patients are to incur the expenses from their own pocket. However, the patient issue remains that they (Covid-19 patients) cannot be charged more than the expenses shown in the chart.
The Commission bench of Kuljit Pal Singh (president), and Ranvir Kaur (member) thus partly allowing the complaint, directed the Mayor Hospital and its directors to jointly and severally to pay the amount — excluding Rs 1,23,000 of the total bill amount of Rs 8,43,500 charged from Manpreet Singh.
Story continues below this ad
Since, a payment of Rs 3,00,908 during the pendency of the complaint was made to the complainant, the commission said that it should be adjusted from the overcharged amount, and thus it should refund the amount of Rs 4,19,592, and also pay a lump-sum amount of Rs 15,000 as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.
