The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh, on November 5, 2024, while considering a medical negligence case in Tirlok Chand Sharma v. Max Super Speciality Hospital [Consumer Complaint No. CC/113/2024] adjudicated in favor of the complainant, Tirlok Chand Sharma. The Commission held Max Super Speciality Hospital liable for overcharging Rs. 90,000 during the complainant’s treatment and directed the hospital to refund the excess amount with interest, along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs. The judgment reaffirmed consumer protection principles, especially in cases involving medical services.

The complainant, Tirlok Chand Sharma, underwent robotic surgery for oncology treatment at Max Super Speciality Hospital in November 2023. He was admitted on November 12, 2023, and discharged on November 20, 2023. Upon discharge, the hospital issued Invoice No. MHIC234158 dated November 20, 2023, for Rs. 4,44,435. The complainant deposited Rs. 2,10,000 upfront, while Rs. 3,24,435 was credited to the hospital’s account by the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). However, the hospital also charged an additional Rs. 90,000, raising the total amount received to Rs. 5,34,435.

The complainant alleged that this additional charge of Rs. 90,000 constituted overcharging and amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Despite repeated requests, the hospital failed to refund the excess amount.

The hospital contended that the total payment of Rs. 5,34,435 had been appropriately accounted for and that the amount of Rs. 89,999.99 had been refunded as mentioned in a settlement receipt. However, the complainant’s counsel argued that the refund was never processed, rendering the hospital’s actions deceptive and unfair.

The hospital later admitted during proceedings that the refund had not been executed, claiming it was due to inadvertence. The hospital expressed its willingness to refund the amount during the hearing.

The Commission carefully examined the evidence, including Invoice No. MHIC234158 and the settlement receipt. It observed that the hospital had acknowledged receipt of Rs. 5,34,435 against a billed amount of Rs. 4,44,435 but failed to justify the additional charge of Rs. 90,000.

The Commission noted, “The evidence clearly establishes that the hospital accepted Rs. 5,34,435 against the billed amount of Rs. 4,44,435. Despite making a reference to a refund of Rs. 89,999.99, the hospital failed to refund the amount to the complainant.”

Rejecting the hospital’s defense, the Commission held, “The act of mis-stating facts regarding the refund and misleading this Commission constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the hospital.”

The Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and issued the following directions to the hospital:

1. Refund of Rs. 90,000: The hospital was directed to pay the complainant Rs. 90,000 with simple interest at 9% per annum from the invoice date of November 20, 2023.
2. Compensation for Mental Agony: The Commission awarded Rs. 15,000 to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment caused due to the hospital’s actions.
3. Litigation Costs: The hospital was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 as costs of litigation.
4. Compliance Period: The hospital was given 45 days to comply with the order, failing which the amounts would attract a penal interest rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of the compliance period.

Case Title: Tirlok Chand Sharma v. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. CC/113/2024
Bench: President Pawanjit Singh, Member Surjeet Kaur, Member Suresh Kumar Sardana