Hospitals Can’t Charge Registration Fee If It Is Not Displayed Properly, Bangalore Commission Holds BMS Hospital Liable

Brief Facts of the Case:

Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni (“Complainant”) sustained an injury to his left-hand thumb. He had a prior appointment and sought medical treatment at BMS Hospital (“Hospital”) in Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. Upon his visit, the hospital presented the complainant with a bill that included Consultation fees of Rs. 500, X-ray charges of Rs. 300, and registration charges amounting to Rs. 150. The hospital bill was issued on the same day. He contended that the registration fee should not be levied again within a year once paid by the patient.

In an attempt to address these concerns, the complainant reached out to the hospital via email. However, his queries went unanswered, leading him to allege a deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and subsequently filing this complaint. Aggrieved, the complainant alleged a deficiency in service by the hospital for failing to refund a sum of Rs. 150 and claimed damages amounting to Rs. 50,000, along with other reliefs before the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore-I (“District Commission”).

The hospital vehemently contended that the complaint was misconceived, groundless, frivolous, vexatious, and unsustainable in the eyes of the law, and therefore should be dismissed. They argued that their practice of collecting registration fees only from patients visiting the hospital for the first time was in compliance with the "Clinical Establishment Act Standard for Hospital (Level IA and Level IB)." The hospital explained that this registration fee served the purpose of uniquely identifying each patient, maintaining comprehensive patient records, and providing personalized healthcare.

Observations by the Commission:

Referring to the contention by the hospital that they collect registration fees only from patients visiting the hospital for the first time, the District Commission found that the hospital had not provided any documented evidence to substantiate their claim of collecting registration fees as a policy or under any law. There was no display of this policy within the hospital premises. Therefore, the District Commission concluded that the hospital’s actions amounted to unfair and restrictive trade practices and constituted a deficiency in service.

Consequently, the District Commission directed the hospital to refund the complainant the sum of Rs. 150/- collected as a registration fee on March 10, 2022. Further, the Commission directed the hospital to discontinue the restrictive trade practice of collecting registration fees from first-time patients immediately. The hospital was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and trauma endured by the complainant and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Case: Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni vs BMS Hospital

Case No.: CC/168/2022

Advocate for the Complainant: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Sathyanarayana Shastri

Click Here To Read/Download Order