NEW DELHI: The West Bengal state consumer commission has directed Ispat Cooperative Hospital in South 24 Parganas to refund Rs 2 lakh to a patient after finding that the hospital charged him for an intensive care bed even though its own records showed that he had stayed in a general ward. The commission also directed the hospital to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs. The order was passed on August 25, 2026.
What was the dispute over the hospital bill and Swasthya Sathi card? According to the commission order, Anindya Chakraborty was admitted to Ispat Cooperative Hospital on the night of May 1, 2021, and remained there until May 6. His family presented a valid Swasthya Sathi card to avail of the government health scheme, but Chakraborty alleged that the hospital refused to accept it and instead made him pay for his treatment. Chakraborty also alleged that although he stayed in a standard general ward, the hospital's final bill included charges for an intensive care unit (ICU) bed. He was made to pay Rs 2 lakh for his discharge. He later approached the Baruipur district consumer commission, alleging that the hospital had wrongly refused the Swasthya Sathi card and charged him for services he had not received. The district commission rejected his complaint in March 2024. It found that he had not produced enough evidence to prove that the hospital had refused his Swasthya Sathi card at the time of admission. It also relied on the hospital's explanation that during the COVID-19 pandemic, general beds had been converted for ICU/ICCU use. Chakraborty challenged that decision before the state commission. He argued that the hospital had wrongly refused the Swasthya Sathi benefit and had charged him for an ICU stay even though he was actually admitted in a general bed. The hospital, on the other hand, argued that there was no documentary proof that Chakraborty had protested the refusal of the Swasthya Sathi card at the time. It also said that the reference to the ICCU bed in the bill was a clerical mistake during the COVID-19 period.
What did the commission say while ruling in the patient's favour? The bench comprising President Justice Bibhas Ranjan De and member Mridula Roy found that the district commission had failed to properly consider the contradiction between the discharge summary and the final bill. The state commission noted that the discharge documents showed that Chakraborty had stayed in a general bed, while the bill charged him for an ICCU bed. The commission said: “A meticulous examination of the discharge summary alongside the final invoice reveals a stark and troubling contradiction : the complainant was accommodated in a general bed for the duration of his 5/6 day stay, yet the hospital unjustly levied charges for an ICCU bed. This glaring discrepancy and exploitive invoicing by the hospital administration undeniably constitutes a textbook instance of ‘unfair trade practice’,” the bench noted. The commission also disagreed with the district commission's view that the patient had failed to prove that his Swasthya Sathi card was refused. It noted that the patient had later complained to government authorities and that the district commission itself had considered one such complaint. “It is respectfully submitted that the Ld. DCDRC fell into palpable error by erroneously focusing on the purported non-production of documents verifying the lodgment of a complaint before competent authorities regarding the refusal of the Swasthya Sathi Card. Paradoxically, the Ld. Commission conspicuously took into consideration a specific complaint dated 21.02.2022 within the contours of its final order, thereby revealing a stark material contradiction in its findings,” The commission said. The commission further held that a hospital cannot charge a patient for a higher-cost ICU or ICCU bed when its records show that the patient was in a general bed. It also held that treatment provided through the Swasthya Sathi scheme comes within the meaning of a service under consumer law because the government pays the empanelled hospital on behalf of the card holder. The commission said: “Hospitals are legally required to provide accurate, transparent billing that matches their treatment logs. Charging a patient for a high-cost intensive coronary care unit (ICCU) bed while officially documenting that he stayed in a regular general bed, in our humble opinion, is a form of fraudulent and manipulative billing,” it further noted. The commission ultimately set aside the district consumer commission's March 28, 2024 order and allowed Chakraborty's appeal. It directed the hospital administration to refund the Rs 2 lakh paid by him, while allowing the hospital to seek reimbursement of the amount under his Swasthya Sathi card. The hospital was also directed to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs. All the directions have to be complied with within eight weeks from the date of the order.
