Mumbai: The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has pulled up Bhatia Hospital in Mumbai for detaining a two-day-old newborn over a billing dispute, ruling that hospitals cannot withhold a patient’s discharge for non-payment of bills.

The commission directed the Tardeo-based hospital to pay a total compensation of around ₹38,080 to the child’s father, including a refund of the excess amount charged along with interest accrued over nine years.

Commission criticises hospital’s conduct

In its order, the commission strongly criticised the hospital’s handling of the case, describing the conduct of its officials as “callous, casual and insensitive” towards the newborn.

It observed that the baby’s father had given a written undertaking to clear the outstanding amount within 24 hours after the family’s cashless insurance claim was rejected. Despite this assurance, the hospital allegedly refused to discharge the infant.

The commission also noted that the pending amount was less than the deposit already paid by the family.

Baby allegedly detained for over nine hours

The case dates back to February 2017, when advocate Rajesh Dharap’s wife gave birth to twin boys. One of the newborns required neonatal intensive care and was shifted to Bhatia Hospital.

According to the complaint, the hospital added extra half-day charges and detained the baby for more than nine hours after treatment was completed due to the billing dispute.

The commission ruled that the hospital was guilty of deficiency in service and stated that the newborn should have been allowed to leave the hospital and reunite with his mother without unnecessary delay.

Hospital cites insurance delay

Bhatia Hospital denied any deficiency in service, stating that the family had opted for a cashless insurance facility.

The hospital argued that discharge procedures generally take five to six hours and claimed the delay occurred because the insurance company raised queries before eventually rejecting the cashless claim.

However, the consumer commission partly allowed the complaint, reiterating that a patient cannot be detained over pending bill clearance.