Making False advertisement is exploitation of patients : The Hospital saddled with Rs.1 lakh

Making False Advertisement, rather not adhering to promises  made in Advertisement costed Rs.1 lakh to the Hospital. A lesson to be learnt by others. Make such promises in the Advertisement which can be fulfilled. 

Case Details :

Suryakant V/s. Brahmashakti Sanjeevan Hospital, Haryana.

Revision Petition No.1776/2017

Decided on :13/11/2018

Before :

Hon. Dr. S.M.Kantikar, Presiding Member,

Hon. Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member

Judgment Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F1776%2F2017&dtofhearing=2018-11-13

Facts in short :

1. The case revolves around following Advertisement given by the Hospital in local news paper.

“एंजियोग्राफी  - 12,500 "

"एंजियोप्लास्टी   - 1,25,000       एक मेडिकेटिड स्टेंट के साथ”

2. The Complainant after chest pain was admitted to the Hospital and he underwent Angioplasty and a stent was also implanted. It was contended on behalf of the complainant that the total bill was made to the tune of Rs.2,30,000/-, which was contrary to the said advertisement. The Complainant paid Rs.1,05,000/- in excess. Thus he filed a case against the Hospital for  adopting unfair trade practices, in Jhajjar District Forum and claimed the excess amount. The Complaint was allowed and hence the Hospital filed appeal in State Forum.

3. It was contended on behalf of the Hospital that there was no unfair trade practice adopted by it. It was contended by the Hospital that the advertisement was applicable to those patients who make payment of Rs.1,25,000/- in Cash. The Complainant gave consent for best quality stent of "‘Yukon Elite 2.75 x 24 mm @ 14 atm, which has a life time guarantee and thus the extra amount was charged.

4. It was further contended by the Hospital that the said Advertisement was meant only for emergency patient and not for routine/planned patient, liked the Complainant. The State Forum dismissed the Compliant and hence the Complainant approached the National Commission.

Held :

1. After perusing the record and hearing the parties at length, it allowed the Revision Petition and confirmed the original judgment of the District Forum in favour of the Complainant.

2. It was held that the above advertisement does not carry any detail that whether it is applicable for routine patients or the emergency patients; whether benefit is only for the cash payment customers.  In the instant case, the complainant / patient was admitted in the hospital as an emergency case with chest pain.  The ECG revealed Acute MI, therefore, the treating doctors advised for angioplasty.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant’s wife opted for best quality stent and gave consent for the proposed charges towards procedure approximately amounting to Rs.2,40,000/-.  

3. The Commission held that the implanted stent "Yukon Elite’ was also a medicated stent. It observed that even if  we go by the plain words of the advertisement, any common / prudent person will be misled by such advertisement.  As per the advertisement, it is clear that medicated stent will be used during the angioplasty and thus in our view, the Hospital had intentionally concealed the material information in the advertisement to avail the benefits of scheme.  It is quite surprising that the Scheme was applicable for the routine or planned patients undergoing angiography / angioplasty. No one will approach the hospital as a routine investigation for angiography and opt for the procedure of angioplasty.  But, commonly most of the cases approach the hospital in emergency cardiac problems and after investigations the decision of angioplasty ought to be taken.  As contended by Hospital, the scheme was not applicable for emergency patients, is baseless and has no ground. 

4.The National Commission came heavily on the Hospital after perusing the Bills which revealed that  the cost of stent was Rs. 1,12,000/- and the cost of procedure was Rs.1,15,000/- whereas as per the advertisement / offer, the cost of angioplasty was Rs.1,25,000/- meaning thereby the cost of stent will be only Rs.10,000/-.  It clearly transpires that the hospital routinely use stent costing to Rs.10,000/- whereas ‘Yukon Elite stent’ which they have implanted in the instant patient was for Rs.1,12,000/-, meaning thereby Rs.1,02,000/- in excess.  There should be logic / some justification for such huge difference of charges between two stents.  It is just exploitation of the innocent patient, having cardiac problems.  In our considered view, this is a clear case of unfair trade practice adopted by the OP / Hospital. 

5. Doctors cannot Advertise, but whether Hospitals can advertise is the moot question. It's the era of Advertisement / Marketing. For wooing the customers, sellers can make any tall claims. But this judgment has set the precedent that if you make advertisement, make sure that you adhere to it. It means make such promises those can be fulfilled. It is interesting to know that the complainant herein fought the case on his own.

Thanks and regards,

Adv. Rohit Erande

Pune. ©