Billing Discrepancies & Non-Supply Of Medical Records Fall Short Of Criminal Offence: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Against Hospital

The appeals before the Apex Court arose from a judgment setting aside the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate and remanding the matter for reconsideration, especially regarding complicity of a corporate entity (first appellant) running the co-accused hospital, and the third appellant, being the Chairman.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held, “The complaint also alleged grievance about non-supply or delay in supply of medical records. We are of the opinion that the 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 West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017 or the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. However, the complaint only refers to the commission of offence under Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017.”

Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta represented the Appellant, while AOR Kunal Mimani represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The proceedings before the Apex Court arose out of a complaint filed by the second respondent (complainant) in relation to the medical treatment of his mother, who was admitted to Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, Barasat, Kolkata, for treatment of her fractured right femur bone. She underwent a successful surgery. The complainant paid a sum of Rs 1,71,130 towards the treatment expenses. After the discharge of the patient, the complainant approached the hospital authorities, raising concerns regarding certain discrepancies in the billing and seeking copies of medical records and documents relating to the treatment of his mother.

The hospital issued a revised bill reflecting an adjustment in the charges, particularly in relation to an HRCT test amounting to Rs. 2,500. A reminder communication was sent requesting the complainant to collect the refund. The complainant instituted a Complaint Case before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the hospital had intentionally included charges for a diagnostic test which had not been performed, and the hospital personnel behaved improperly and issued threats. On the basis of these allegations, offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 (2017 Act), were invoked against the appellants.

The Magistrate examined the complainant, preliminary statements of supporting witnesses under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and issued process against the accused persons. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed a petition for quashing the complaint and the summoning order under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court, vide the impugned judgement, proceeded to remand the matter to the Magistrate to reconsider the complicity of the accused persons living in separate territorial jurisdictions. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Taking note of the absence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or violation of a fiduciary obligation, the Bench held that the foundational ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust as enshrined in Section 405, IPC were not satisfied. The Bench also noted that the allegation in the complaint was merely that the bill issued by the hospital reflected a charge for a test that was not performed. As per the Bench, once the issue of wrong charge was raised by the complainant, the hospital communicated its decision to refund the amount. “The discrepancy in billing appears to be more of an inadvertence, than a case of dishonest intention on part of the hospital. We are of the opinion that the allegation of cheating is completely misplaced”, it added.

The Bench further found nothing in the complaint indicating a prior agreement, concerted plan, or meeting of minds among the accused persons to commit an unlawful act. “In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the 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”, it added.

The Bench clarified that the allegation could at the most give rise to some kind of a claim in civil law or a statutory requirement under the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017 or the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. However, the complaint only referred to the commission of an offence under Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishment (Registration, Regulation & Transparency) Act, 2017.

The Bench explained that disputes concerning billing practices, supply of medical records, or service-related 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, it is not permissible for the complainant to proceed with prosecution by just mentioning Section 34 in the complaint. We do not deny the fact that that complainant may have certain service-related grievances and these could be addressed under Section 29 of the 2017 Act. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no criminal offence even under Section 34 of the 2017 Act is made out”, it added.

Allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the criminal complaint. “Quashing of the above referred criminal complaint will have no bearing on the civil or statutory remedies that the complainant may exercise in accordance with law”, it added.

Cause Title: Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 481)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, AOR Shivendra Singh, Advocates Bikram Dwivedi, Prakriti Rastogi, Aryama Singh Rajput

Respondent: AOR Kunal Mimani, Advocate Parag Chaturvedi

Click here to read/download Judgment