- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
Spinal surgery patient issued multiple bills, departure reported to police: Consumer court slaps Rs 20,000 compensation on Max Hospital Mohali

Mohali: A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Punjab has directed Max Super Speciality Hospital, Phase 6, Mohali, to pay Rs 20,000 as compensation to a 70-year-old patient after finding that the hospital had issued three separate bills for the same course of treatment and later reported to the police that he had fled without clearing dues.
According to a report by Hindustan Times, the consumer panel found that the hospital had issued multiple bills for the same treatment and held its conduct to be an unfair trade practice.
The case concerned a patient who had approached the Hospital in December 2021 with complaints of low back pain and was advised spinal surgery. The patient stated that he had disclosed his insurance cover of Rs 5 lakh at the start and the hospital had estimated the cost of admission and surgery at Rs 3.9–4 lakh. He mentioned that his out-of-pocket liability would be limited to Rs 4,500, with the insurer covering the rest.
According to the complaint, the insurer transferred Rs 2 lakh to the hospital based on this estimate. The patient was admitted on December 16, 2021, and discharged on December 22.
The main objection before the commission was multiple billing. It was alleged that the hospital raised an interim bill of Rs 8 lakh, followed by a second bill of Rs 5 lakh on the date of discharge, December 22, and a third bill of Rs 4 lakh the next day, December 23, all for the same admission and procedure.
The patient further alleged that he was held back in the hospital on December 23 and 24 without being provided medicines or treatment during this period, and sought Rs 10 lakh in compensation for mental agony, physical harassment and litigation costs.
In its response, the hospital maintained that the actual bill amounted to Rs 8 lakh, but was voluntarily brought down to Rs 4 lakh after taking the patient's financial condition into account. It further submitted that the patient and his family had left the hospital premises without clearing outstanding dues of Rs 79,786, prompting it to file a police complaint on December 24, 2021.
In its order, the bench reportedly noted that the hospital had issued different bills for the same treatment period, which it held amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, reports HT.
The Commission also took note of the fact that the hospital had reported the patient's departure to the police, observing that this reflected negligence on the hospital's part in allowing the patient to leave in the first place, adds the daily.
The Commission directed Max Super Speciality Hospital to pay Rs 20,000 to the complainant towards mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service, within 30 days, failing which the amount will attract 6 per cent annual interest from the date of the order till realisation. The hospital has also been directed to deposit Rs 10,000 each with the Tricity Consumer Courts Welfare Association and the commission's legal aid fund.
L.L.B.
An LLB.graduate from K.R.Mangalam University navigating the intersection of law, healthcare, and media.Currently handling legal matters at Medical Dialogues. Learning, researching, and growing with every story.

