A Pandemic's Price: Mohali Resident Wins Battle Against Overcharged Hospital Bill

In the darkest days of the second COVID-19 wave, when hospitals were overwhelmed and families were desperate, one Mohali resident found herself battling not just the virus, but also an exorbitant hospital bill. Now, more than two years later, a consumer panel has delivered a significant victory, ordering a private hospital to refund the overcharged amount paid for her husband's critical COVID-19 treatment.

Gagandeep Kaur, a resident of Sector 78, Mohali, had lodged a complaint against Max Hospital Mohali, alleging that the facility had grossly overcharged her for her husband, Harpal Singh's, treatment.

Harpal Singh, tragically, succumbed to the virus after being admitted to the hospital's Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with a ventilator from April 25 to May 2, 2021. The initial bill presented to Kaur amounted to a staggering Rs 1,18,041, a sum that felt like a cruel additional burden during an already devastating period.

Kaur's grievance was rooted in the state government's clear directives regarding treatment costs during the pandemic.

Punjab, like many other states, had instituted rate caps for various COVID-19 related services in private hospitals to prevent exploitation during the humanitarian crisis. Specifically, the government had set the maximum charge for an ICU bed with a ventilator at Rs 15,000 per day, Rs 10,000 for an ICU without a ventilator, and Rs 8,000 for an isolation bed.

Given that Harpal Singh was in an ICU with a ventilator, his daily charges should not have exceeded the government-mandated Rs 15,000.

However, an analysis of Max Hospital's bill revealed a clear discrepancy. The hospital had overcharged by approximately Rs 30,000, levying charges beyond the permissible limits.

Gagandeep Kaur, still reeling from her loss but determined to seek justice, decided to take her fight to the Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

During the proceedings, Max Hospital Mohali staunchly defended its charges, arguing that the patient's condition necessitated specialized and extensive care, thereby justifying the costs incurred.

They maintained that the bill was in line with the services provided and the high-dependency nature of Harpal Singh's treatment.

But the Consumer Panel, comprising President Pawanjit Singh and Member Surjeet Kaur, was unswayed by the hospital's arguments. In a sharply worded ruling, they emphasized the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic and the moral as well as legal obligations of healthcare providers.

The panel underscored that private hospitals, despite their commercial nature, were not exempt from adhering to government-fixed rates during a public health emergency. They noted that the pandemic was a humanitarian crisis, not an opportunity for profiteering.

The commission found that Max Hospital Mohali had failed to produce any substantial evidence to justify its higher charges for specific services provided to Harpal Singh, especially when faced with the clear government notification on price caps.

The panel unequivocally stated, “During the COVID-19 pandemic, the state government had fixed the rates which private hospitals could charge. The hospital was bound to adhere to the government rates.”

Consequently, the Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered Max Hospital Mohali to refund the overcharged amount of Rs 30,000 to Gagandeep Kaur.

In addition, recognizing the mental agony and harassment she endured, the panel directed the hospital to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation for her suffering and another Rs 5,000 towards the cost of litigation. This brings the total ordered refund and compensation to Rs 40,000, a significant affirmation of consumer rights during a period when many felt powerless.

This ruling serves as a powerful reminder that even in times of crisis, accountability remains paramount.

It offers a ray of hope to countless families who may have faced similar situations of alleged overcharging, reinforcing the principle that healthcare, while a business, must operate within ethical and legally defined boundaries, especially when the public's well-being is at stake.