The West Bengal State Consumer Commission has ordered a ‘Swasthya Sathi’-empanelled hospital to refund Rs 2 lakh to a patient after discovering it billed him for an ICCU bed while keeping him in a general ward. The commission further directed the hospital to pay Rs 50,000 in compensation and Rs 25,000 in litigation costs for the May 2021 incident.West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president Justice Bibhas Ranjan De and member Mridula Roy were hearing an appeal filed by one Anindya Chakraborty against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Baruipur, which had rejected his complaint one March 28, 2024.“A meticulous examination of the discharge summary alongside the final invoice reveals a stark and troubling contradiction,” the state commission said on August 25, noting that Chakraborty was accommodated in a general bed during his five/six-day stay but was charged for an ICCU bed. The commission held that the discrepancy amounted to an “unfair trade practice”.The case dates back to May 1, 2021, when Chakraborty was admitted to Ispat Cooperative Hospital at 8.56pm during the Covid-19 pandemic and remained there until May 6. According to his complaint, his family presented a valid Swasthya Sathi Card, but the hospital declined to accept it. He further alleged that although he stayed in a general ward, the final bill included intensive-care charges and Rs 2 lakh was paid to secure his discharge.Denial of Swasthya Sathi benefitChakraborty contended that the hospital’s refusal to honour his Swasthya Sathi Card amounted to deficiency in service. He also argued that levying ICU charges despite his admission to a standard general bed amounted to an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.Denying the allegations, its counsel, advocate Suraj Roy, submitted that the record did not contain documentary evidence showing that Chakraborty had lodged a formal protest over the alleged rejection of the Swasthya Sathi Card.The hospital also argued that during the Covid-19 crisis, general wards had been converted into intensive-care units to meet the circumstances prevailing at the time. It further submitted that the discharge certificate contained an inadvertent clerical error concerning the bed occupied by the patient.Story continues below this adGovernment respondents submitted a written brief questioning Chakraborty’s status as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act and said that medical care sought under the Swasthya Sathi Card amounted to free treatment.Contradiction in hospital recordsDisagreeing with the district consumer commission’s assessment of the case, the state commission said that the discharge summary and final invoice showed a discrepancy between the bed recorded for Chakraborty’s stay and the charges levied on him.The state commission also found fault with the district commission for focusing on the alleged absence of documents showing that Chakraborty had complained to the competent authorities about the refusal of his Swasthya Sathi Card. It noted that the district commission’s own order had taken into account a complaint dated February 21, 2022.The state commission further referred to grievances lodged on January 24 and February 21, 2022, copies of which, according to the order, were communicated to the hospital administration. It said the claim regarding the alleged refusal of the Swasthya Sathi Card could not be brushed aside.Story continues below this adIt also rejected the district consumer commission’s reasoning concerning the alleged conversion of general beds into ICU or ICCU facilities during the pandemic. The commission said the district commission had proceeded on “conjecture and assumption” without seeking corroborative proof of such conversion from the hospital.On the billing issue, the commission said hospitals are required to provide accurate and transparent bills corresponding with their treatment records. It noted that the discharge certificate recorded a regular bed while the final bill charged for an ICCU bed.Beneficiary can approach consumer bodyThe commission also rejected the objection to Chakraborty’s status as a consumer. It held that a patient can file a consumer complaint against a hospital or nursing home for refusal to provide treatment under a Swasthya Sathi Card.Although the patient does not pay cash out of pocket, the commission said, the government pays the empanelled healthcare provider on behalf of the cardholder, creating a consumer-provider relationship.Story continues below this adThe commission concluded that Chakraborty had established deficiency in service concerning the denial of the Swasthya Sathi Card and unfair trade practice over the ICCU billing. It therefore set aside the March 28, 2024 order of the district consumer commission and allowed the appeal.Eight weeks to complyThe commission directed Ispat Cooperative Hospital and its chairman to refund Rs 2 lakh to Chakraborty, while giving them liberty to seek due reimbursement of the amount against his Swasthya Sathi Card.They were also held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs. The commission directed that all the directions be complied with within eight weeks from August 25, 2026.TakeawayA patient covered under a state health scheme can approach a consumer forum over alleged denial of scheme benefits or billing discrepancies, with the commission holding that government payment to an empanelled hospital creates a consumer-provider relationship.Story continues below this adDon’t miss out on these storiesAndhra consumer commission orders LIC to pay widow Rs 50 lakh insurance claimForced to attend conference in borrowed suit after airline loses bag, banker wins Rs 15,000Delhi consumer body rules against insurer, upholds Rs 1.8 lakh award for stolen Honda City