Bangalore Consumer Commission Cracks Down on Hospitals Charging Hidden Fees

Bangalore Consumer Commission Cracks Down on Hospitals Charging Hidden Fees

The bench of the Bangalore Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President B. Narayanappa and Member Sharavathi S.M. found BMS Hospital responsible for collecting registration fees from its patients illegally. The hospital's arguments that the registration fee was necessary for unique patient identification, maintaining thorough medical records, and delivering personalised healthcare were dismissed by the commission.

Jeevan Kulkarni, the complainant, suffered an injury to his left thumb and had a pre-scheduled medical appointment at BMS Hospital in Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. During his visit, the hospital presented him with a bill, which consisted of a consultation fee of ₹500, X-ray charges amounting to ₹300, and registration fees of ₹150. The complainant argued that the hospital should not impose the registration fee again within a year once it has been paid by the patient.

In an effort to address these concerns, the complainant attempted to communicate with the hospital via email. His inquiries, however, received no response, which led him to assert that the hospital had provided inadequate service. Consequently, he filed a formal complaint, alleging a deficiency in service by the hospital for not refunding the sum of ₹150. Additionally, he claimed damages totalling ₹50,000, along with other remedies, before the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore-I (District Commission).

The hospital strongly maintained that the complaint was baseless, lacking merit, and without legal foundation, and thus should be rejected. Their position was that their policy of collecting registration fees solely from first-time patients adhered to the standards outlined in the “Clinical Establishment Act Standard for Hospitals (Level IA and Level IB).” The hospital clarified that this registration fee was essential for the distinct identification of each patient, the upkeep of comprehensive patient records, and the delivery of personalised healthcare.

Regarding the hospital's argument that they exclusively collected registration fees from first-time patients, the District Commission determined that the hospital had failed to produce any documented evidence supporting this practice as a policy or in accordance with any legal mandate. Furthermore, the hospital had not displayed this policy within their premises. As a result, the District Commission concluded that the hospital's actions amounted to unfair and restrictive trade practices and constituted a deficiency in service.

As a result, the District Commission issued several directives. Firstly, it instructed the hospital to reimburse the complainant the amount of ₹150, which had been collected as a registration fee on March 10, 2022. Additionally, the Commission ordered the hospital to cease the practice of collecting registration fees from first-time patients immediately, deeming it a restrictive trade practice. Furthermore, the hospital was directed to provide a compensation of ₹2,000 to the complainant for the mental distress and trauma he experienced, as well as an additional sum of ₹2,000 to cover the litigation costs.