West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017 – s.34 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.405,
420 and 120B – Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 – Successful medical treatment of complainant’s mother and on discharge hospital issued a bill – Complainant alleged discrepancies in the bills and sought medical records for insurance reimbursement – Hospital issued revised bill reflecting adjustment in the charges, and communicated to the complainant to collect the refund amount – However, complaint case filed alleging commission of offences u/ss.405, 420 and 120B, IPC along with s.34 of the 2017 Act that the hospital had intentionally included charges for a diagnostic test which had not been performed, that the relevant medical documents were not supplied promptly; and that certain hospital personnel behaved improperly and issued threats when the complainant questioned the billing and sought clarification regarding the treatment records, against first appellant-company running the hospital; second appellant-hospital; third appellantChairman of the company; fourth appellant-representative attached with the hospital; and third respondent-former employee of the hospital – Issuance of process by the Magistrate – Appellants sought quashing of the complaint and the summoning order u/s.482 CrPC – High Court remand the matter to the Magistrate to reconsider complicity of accused persons – Correctness:
Held: Allegations made in the complaint, even if assumed to be true in their entirety and accepted at face value, fail to disclose the commission of any offence under the Sections invoked against the accused persons – Complaint also alleged grievance about non-supply or delay in supply of medical records – Allegation falls short of a criminal offence and could at the most give rise to some kind of a claim in civil law or a statutory requirement under the 2017 Act or 2002 Regulations – However, the complaint only refers to the commission of offence u/s.34, which provides for criminal liability for declared offences and prescribes punishments – Legislative scheme clearly establishes that disputes concerning billing practices, supply of medical records, or servicerelated grievances are primarily intended to be addressed as deficiencies for which compensation is payable, if found to be true – Without even indicating as to how and in which manner the criminal offence has been committed, not permissible for the complainant to proceed with prosecution by just mentioning s.34 in the complaint – Complainant may have certain service-related grievances and these could be addressed u/s.29 of the 2017 Act – Thus, no criminal offence even u/s.34 of the 2017 Act made out – Fit case for exercising jurisdiction u/s.482 CrPC to quash the criminal complaint and the High Court failed to exercise such a power – Judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside and the complaint case quashed. [Paras 11-20].
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.