HC slams hospitals for ‘artificial’ pricing; orders Rs 7.4L refund for 85-yr-old

Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered the Haryana govt to reimburse the full medical bill of Rs 7.42 lakh with 6% annual interest to an 85-year-old petitioner who was overcharged by a private hospital.Disposing of a civil writ petition filed by the octogenarian, who underwent treatment for coronary artery disease in Panchkula in April 2023, Justice Harpreet Singh Brar slammed the practice of artificially lowering package rates to attract patients, only to charge separately for essential medicines and consumables. The petitioner's counsel said despite being assured the package rate would cover all procedural and admission costs, the hospital's final bill was grossly disproportionate. While the angiography/angioplasty package was Rs 1.05 lakh and an extra Rs 30,000 for rotablation package as per tax invoice, the hospital charged an additional Rs 6.02 lakh for medicines and consumables, the counsel said. The court directed the director general of health services (DGHS) to verify the package rates of all empanelled hospitals, either himself or through civil surgeon. The court said, "In case any empanelled hospitals are found violating the policy, appropriate corrective measures should be taken, including cancellation of their licence. The director general shall further ensure that the cost of treatment is explained to the patient or their next of kin in a language they are familiar with, instead of merely obtaining signatures on cyclostyled proformas. The practice of artificially lowering package rates to attract patients initially only to later charge separately for essential procedures shall not be permitted." The court also directed the DGHS to consider including intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) technique within standard state package rates for coronary artery disease procedures. The judge directed the DGHS to complete this exercise and file a compliance report with the court within three months. Justice Brar observed, "It appears that the respondents have chosen to adhere to the policy in its letter, while turning a blind eye to its spirit and true objective. In doing so, they have forgotten that a policy meant to preserve life cannot be allowed to become a procrustean bed of rigid literalism."