Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
The present revisional application has been filed at the instance of the petitioner hospital against an order passed by the West Bengal Clinical
Establishment Regulatory Commission, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/-to the opposite party/complainant,
inclusive of refund of excess amount assessed at Rs.18324/- and litigation costs, along with penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on documents annexed to a supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, submits that
the package-in-question is clearly evident from an internal memo of the petitioner/hospital, which, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner,
was made public and the opposite party was informed thereof. Such “internal memo†shows that the price of a package for “PTCA Multi
Vessel Primary†costs Rs.1,68,500/- for a general ward. Coupled with such costs, the opposite party, it is submitted, overstayed for two days, for
which he was also charged by the hospital. As such, there could not have been any over-payment in the instant case.
Learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the packages annexed at page 7 of the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner
itself shows that the price for Cath Lab Package in relation to Coronary Angioplasty, which the opposite party underwent, amounted to Rs.59,500/- for
a general ward, where the opposite party was admitted. The opposite party stayed at the hospital for two days, which was included within the
package.
It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party concedes to the two invoices raised by the hospital as regards the one
extra day of stay of the opposite party at the hospital, which is evident from such final invoice of the hospital itself, as per which, taking into
consideration all charges and expenses, the total amount chargeable to the opposite party would come to Rs.1,40,000/- (approximately). However, it is
shown from the final bill annexed at page 38 of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, that the net amount ultimately charged to
the opposite party was Rs.2,50,202/- which was a case of gross over-billing.
As such, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that this Court, within its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would be
justified in increasing the amount which was directed by the Commission to be paid by the petitioner in view of the petitioner overcharging the opposite
party.
After hearing the submissions of both sides, it appears that, since the opposite party admits the bill raised for the extra day of stay at the hospital,
including the allied charges as well as the package charges as revealed at page 7 of the supplementary affidavit for Coronary Angioplasty, which the
opposite party submits he underwent, the liability of the opposite party to pay Rs.1,40,000/- is admitted. However, it is not clear from the evidence and
materials on record that the internal memo annexed at page 6 of the supplementary affidavit was ever circulated or published and was within the
knowledge of the opposite party. Rather, internal memos are generally supposed to circulate within the authorities of the hospital and not publicized.
What was admittedly published was the package prices annexed at page 7 of the supplementary affidavit, which show that the opposite party’s
stand is apparently vindicated as far as the said charges for Coronary Angioplasty are concerned. Moreover, both sides are at a loss in explaining
before the Court as to what is the exact nature of treatment as alleged to be performed on the opposite party by the petitioner under the name of
PTCA Multi Vessel Primary.
In any event, the materials now placed before this Court were mostly not produced before the Commission for the Commission to come a correct
finding as to the exact amounts, if at all, due by the petitioner to the opposite party in lieu of overcharging. Hence, it would be improper for this Court
to go into the fresh factual aspects brought to the notice of this Court by both sides, since by virtue of doing so, a forum of challenge would be lost to
the unsuccessful party.
As such, C.O. 1332 of 2019 is disposed of on contest by setting aside the impugned order and directing the West Bengal Clinical Establishment
Regulatory Commission to rehear the complaint of the opposite party and to adjudicate the same afresh, upon giving opportunity to both sides to
adduce further evidence in support of their respective cases. However, to allay the immediate financial constraints of the opposite party, the petitioner
is directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- directed to be paid by the Commission, on an ad hoc basis, without prejudice to the rights and contentions
of the parties in the proceeding. It is made clear that such amount would be subject to the result of the fresh adjudication of the matter by the
Commission. The Commission will be at liberty to pass appropriate directions regarding such amount at the time of final adjudication of the matter.
The petitioner shall pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party within a fortnight from date. The opposite party is directed to invest such
amount in a short-term interest-bearing fixed deposit account with any nationalised bank and furnish a copy of the detailed as to such fixed deposit to
the petitioner. It is made clear that the opposite party shall not withdraw so deposited even if the same matures prior to adjudication of the matter by
the Commission or liquidate it midway, and the opposite party is at liberty to renew the said deposits for a further limited period upon its expiry, if at all,
in the meantime.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
