Mumbai, August 5, 2026: Holding that a hospital cannot detain a patient merely because insurance formalities are pending, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Bhatia Hospital guilty of deficiency in service for delaying the discharge of a two-day-old newborn by over nine hours while awaiting cashless mediclaim approval.
The Commission, presided over by Justice S.P. Tavade (President) and Vijay C. Premchandani (Member), set aside an order passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that had dismissed the complaint filed by advocate Rajesh Dharap.
It directed the hospital to refund Rs 2,000 with 6 per cent interest, pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental harassment, and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs.
Newborn's Discharge Delayed
According to the complaint, Dharap's twin baby was shifted to Bhatia Hospital's NICU in February 2017 after suffering hypoglycaemia shortly after birth. The treating paediatrician had approved the baby's discharge on February 24, 2017, and the father had deposited Rs 15,000 with the hospital—more than the final bill of Rs 13,515—before noon.
However, hospital staff allegedly refused to complete the discharge process until the cashless insurance claim was decided. When the claim was rejected later in the afternoon, the hospital added half-day charges and discharged the baby only in the evening.
Commission's Observations
The Commission observed that while hospitals may have procedural rules for cashless claims, they cannot ignore the welfare of a two-day-old infant who had already been declared fit for discharge by the treating doctor. It noted that the deposit exceeded the outstanding bill and that the complainant had undertaken to pay any balance if the insurance claim was rejected.
"The patient cannot be detained for want of clearance of the bill," the Commission observed, adding that the hospital staff acted in a "callous, casual and insensitive" manner by keeping the newborn away from his mother for several hours despite clear discharge instructions.
The Commission further held that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had interpreted the hospital's discharge rules too technically without considering the exceptional circumstances of the case, particularly the age of the child and the treating doctor's direction for immediate discharge.
Also Watch:
Complainant Reacts
Advocate Dharap, while speaking to FPJ, said, "This case was never about Rs 2,000. It was about the dignity of a two-day-old newborn. Despite the treating doctor's discharge advice, despite the hospital already holding more money than the outstanding bill, and despite my undertaking to pay any balance, if any, my child was kept away from his mother for several hours. The State Commission has rightly held that such conduct was callous, insensitive and amounted to deficiency in service."
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
