Hospital Told To Pay Rs 72000 Patient Bills Different Gst Numbers

. The commission, however, upheld the finding that the hospital had exercised due care in treating the patient during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The bench of G Radha Rani (President) and Meena Ramanathan (member) was hearing a plea filed by a man who claimed that a hospital had charged him an unreasonably high fee, besides giving a false discharge summary which mentioned medication that was not given to him. He also alleged that the hospital had submitted fake bills to the police station.

“The opposite parties have clearly played fraud in the issuance of bills with such varied licenses. It is not acceptable that the hospital, opposite party No.1, has not provided any information as to when the original license was issued and also when the change was made. Despite claiming that new license was issued, the opposite parties have continued to issue multiple bills with different GST numbers, which amount to unfair trade practice,” the May 22 order read.

The state commission, while noting that the primary complaint of the man was that the swab test, which was reported ‘negative’, was not disclosed to him, observed that the COVID-19 test report guided the interpretation of the same.

The report directed that a single negative test result did not exclude infection and that a positive result was only tentative and would be reconfirmed by retesting. The commission hence stated that the hospital and the doctor “exercised great care and caution” while treating the man, who, as per them, was a very high-risk patient.

The state commission held that the district commission had addressed the issues raised by the man and that the critical care doctors had attended to the man with due care, as supported by progress reports.

The commission had also observed that the hospital had “clearly played fraud” on the issuance of bills with varied licences and that it was not acceptable that the hospital had not provided any information as to when the original licence was issued, and also when the change was made.

The state commission held that despite claiming that a new licence was issued, the opposite parties have continued to issue multiple bills with different Goods and Services Tax (GST) numbers, which amounted to unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, for the said unfair trade practice, the state commission directed the hospital and the doctor to pay Rs 72,235 to the aggrieved man within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Advocate Vankina Allu, appearing for the hospital and doctors, submitted before the district commission that as per the rules of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961, an advocate must not appear in a case wherein he is a witness to the case, and that in the present case, Lanka Rajender Prasad had signed the forms at the time of admission as the son of the complainant.

The counsel for the hospital admitted that the man had come to the hospital on July 25, 2020, and it was highly suspected that he had Covid-19. It was also stated that the man was suffering from severe sepsis and his breathing was 35 times per minute, and he would have required ventilator support if he had not been properly treated.

The counsel submitted that the man was 65 years old with numerous health issues, with an urgent requirement for a ventilator. Further the situation was complicated by the possibility of Covid-19, and it was the duty of the hospital to give the required treatment with consent.

It is contended by the counsel that instead of being thankful for saving his life, the man filed the present complaint with “frivolous and heinous” lies to gain financially out of the situation. He further urged that doctors and the hospital staff worked day and night for the well- being of the man as his life was in extreme danger.

It was argued that the man’s allegation that the hospital needed patients and that there was a bad motive to keep patients and charge for unnecessary treatments was completely unsustainable. The counsel also stated that the hospital had not submitted any fake bills.

Advocate Lanka Rajendra Prasad, appearing for the man, contended that the district commission failed to appreciate that the bill was for all false medications, which the man had stated right from the beginning of the complaint.

It was also submitted that the district commission did not appreciate the fact that the final bill was actually in dispute and that the district Commission had failed to observe that there were two bills issued by the opposite parties on different occasions, that is, one was issued at the time of discharge, and the other was given after the complainant filed a police complaint.

It was stated that the district commission had also failed to note that the GST and drug licence numbers submitted by the hospital were also fake. Lastly, it was urged that the district commission had failed to appreciate that the consent of the patient’s son was taken for Covid-19 treatment and not for multiple treatments, as considered by the district commission.