Misleading Advertisements, Overcharging on Angioplasty: NCDRC fines Gurugram Hospital

It asked the hospital to discontinue its "deceptive" advertisement with immediate effect.

According to the complaint, Surya Kant had developed chest pain in 2015 and got admitted to the hospital in Bahadurgarh. He underwent angioplasty during which one medicated stent was implanted.

It was alleged in the complaint before the district committee that the hospital had charged Rs 2.30 lakh for the angioplasty and stent whereas, as per the advertisement published by the hospital in the local newspaper, a patient was required to pay only Rs 1.25 lakh for angioplasty with a medicated stent. He had to pay Rs 1.05 lakh in excess, it had said.

The lower fora had directed the hospital to refund the excess amount along with litigation charges of Rs 5,500 to the complainant.

This was challenged by the hospital before the state commission, which had set aside the lower fora's order.

Aggrieved with it, Kant approached the apex commission where he alleged that the hospital had obtained the consent of his wife for the stent having higher charges with "mala fide intention".

Deciding his plea, the apex commission said, "The hospital attracted the complainant (Kant) with its advertisement, and, after the complainant was totally in its and it's treating doctors' hands with a cardiac problem in emergency conditions, imposed its conditions and additional costs high handedly and arbitrarily at its end."

The hospital contended that the stent implanted was of the high quality and the wife had given consent for the same. It further claimed that the offer was available for cash payment basis only and was not applicable for emergency patients but for the planned/routine patients.

To this, the apex commission said, "The so-called 'consent', taken from Kant's wife, was in emergency conditions and in forced duress."

It further said that nowhere in the advertisement it was stated that this was only for 'cash payment basis' or that this was applicable only for 'planned/routine patients', or 'emergency patients' were excluded, or stent whose price was stated in the offer was any other than the best quality medicated stent available with the hospital.

"He (Kant) opted for angioplasty with the best quality medicated stent available with the hospital, as would a normal and reasonable man suffering from the cardiac problem in emergency conditions normally and reasonably opt for.

"All applicable salient terms and conditions, and including those relating to 'quality' of the medicated stent and 'excluded categories', were required to and should have been stated upfront in the advertisement, which was not done by the hospital. The acts and conduct of the hospital were unfair and deceptive," the commission said.