Doc To Pay For Inflated Hospital Bill

New Delhi, 29 Jan 2019: Asking patients to pay inflated bills for treatment that they haven’t received amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of doctors and hospitals, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held.

In the case in question, the commission found that a man was billed for admission in ICU and charged for surgical gloves, micro-set and other materials, even though facts showed that a surgery was never conducted. The patient was awarded a Rs 3-lakh compensation and the doctor held guilty of unfair trade practice.

The panel found no evidence on record showing that the patient was put in ICU. In fact, the commission found it to be the contention of the treating doctor that a surgery was not required.

The treating doctor was also found guilty of not providing “treatment as per standards of normal medical parlance”. A bench comprising president R K Agrawal and member M Shreesha held, “The doctor is not only negligent in the treatment but has also wrongly billed the complainant with charges for which the treatment was never rendered and, therefore, we are of the opinion that this amounts to unfair trade practice.”

The man was suffering from severe pain when he went to see the doctor on October 4, 2011. He was diagnosed with fissures but, according to him, the treatment did not bring him relief. The man claimed that doctor visited him once or twice during his hospital stay, but a bill of Rs 36,450 was raised.

He was allegedly charged Rs 1,850 for some tests, whereas the usual rate was Rs 250. Also, Rs 12,500 was added as “ICU charges”. When his pain didn’t subside, the man approached another hospital where he was operated upon. The man then lodged a complaint with higher authorities, including DGHS. A medical board was constituted, but it gave the doctor a clean chit.

The man moved a district forum and, subsequently, the state commission. Not achieving a favourable order, he filed a revision petition with the national commission. The doctor denied that the man was given an assurance of relief in two days. It was argued that the man was given antibiotics and painkillers. The doctor denied any negligence and submitted that the bills accrued from actual use.

The medical board had based its finding on assumption that incision and drainage were conducted by the doctor. However, the apex consumer body found that as per the doctor’s written version, “no surgery” was done. The man’s claim of deficient treatment was also validated. On finding that the doctor was covered by a policy, the insurance company was accordingly directed to pay the amount.ET Healthworld