Supreme Court quashes criminal complaint against Kolkata hospital over billing discrepancies

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has quashed a criminal complaint against a Kolkata-based hospital and its chairman, finding that billing discrepancies and service-related grievances are primarily civil in nature and do not constitute criminal offences.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, in a judgement delivered on Tuesday, set aside a 2023 order of the Calcutta High Court, which had suggested that a prima facie criminal case was made out against the Narayana Multispecialty Hospital at Barasat in West Bengal.

A complaint was filed by a man whose mother was treated for a fractured femur at the hospital in 2021.

The complainant alleged that the hospital intentionally charged Rs 2,500 for an HRCT test that was never performed and failed to provide medical records promptly.

An HRCT (high-resolution computed tomography) scan is a specialised imaging test that provides highly detailed, cross-sectional, 3D images of lungs and chest tissue.

He also alleged that hospital staff behaved improperly and issued threats when questioned.

On the basis of these allegations, a magisterial court had issued notices against the hospital, its chairman, and staff under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, along with provisions of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017.

The hospital maintained that the HRCT test was initially proposed but later deemed unnecessary by doctors and said once the error was identified, a revised bill was issued

Having examined the matter, the court held that the essential “foundational ingredients” of criminal offences alleged against the hospital were missing.

It said for the commission of offence of cheating, there must be a “dishonest intention” from the very beginning.

In this case, the billing discrepancy appeared to be an “inadvertence” rather than a fraudulent plot, especially since the hospital proactively offered a refund.

On criminal breach of trust, the bench found no “entrustment” of property for a fiduciary purpose and said a hospital bill payment is a commercial transaction, not a trust-based entrustment. It said since the main offences were non-existent, the charge of criminal conspiracy could not stand independently without proof of a prior agreement to commit an illegal act.

The bench held that the allegations made in the complaint, even if assumed to be true in their entirety and accepted at face value, failed to disclose the commission of any offence under the Sections invoked against the accused persons.