The Supreme Court of India has ruled that discrepancies in hospital billing or delays in providing medical records do not constitute criminal offences such as cheating or criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court emphasized that such grievances are primarily service-related issues to be addressed through civil or statutory regulatory frameworks.
A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe delivered this ruling while quashing a criminal complaint against Narayana Health, its Chairman, and hospital personnel. The Court observed that the High Court had failed to exercise its power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the criminal justice system in what was essentially a civil dispute.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed regarding the treatment of Smt. Bina Sen at Narayana Multispecialty Hospital, Barasat. After a successful surgery and discharge, the hospital issued a bill of approximately ₹1,94,307. The complainant later alleged discrepancies in the billing and a delay in receiving medical records required for insurance reimbursement.
Upon the complainant raising these concerns, the hospital identified that a charge of ₹2,500 for an HRCT test—which was proposed but not performed—had been inadvertently included. The hospital issued a revised bill and repeatedly requested the complainant via email to collect the refund or provide bank details for a transfer.
Despite this, the complainant initiated a criminal case alleging offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC, alongside Section 34 of the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017.
Court’s Analysis of Criminal Charges
Criminal Breach of Trust (Section 405 IPC)
The Court held that the essential ingredient for Section 405 IPC is the “entrustment of property” with a fiduciary obligation. The Bench noted:
“The complaint does not contain any averment that the amount in question was entrusted to the hospital to be held or utilised for a fiduciary or trust-based purpose… in the absence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or violation of a fiduciary obligation, foundational ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust as enshrined in Section 405, IPC are not satisfied.”
Cheating (Section 420 IPC)
On the charge of cheating, the Court observed that there must be evidence of deception and dishonest intention from the inception. Regarding the hospital’s billing error, the Court stated:
“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.”
Delay in Supplying Medical Records
The complainant also alleged a criminal grievance regarding the non-supply or delay in providing medical records. The Supreme Court rejected this as a criminal matter, observing:
“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…”
Statutory Framework vs. Criminal Prosecution
The Bench highlighted that the West Bengal Clinical Establishments Act, 2017, already provides for an Adjudicating Authority and a Regulatory Commission to address grievances regarding “improper billing” and “deficit in service” (Sections 35 and 36).
The Court clarified that while Section 34 of the Act provides for criminal liability in specific instances, it cannot be invoked for general billing disputes:
“The legislative scheme clearly establishes 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… it is not permissible for the complainant to proceed with prosecution by just mentioning Section 34 in the complaint.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any criminal offence. The Court criticized the High Court for remanding the matter instead of quashing it, noting that the proceedings were a “manifest abuse of process.”
The Bench allowed the appeals and quashed the criminal complaint, while noting that this would not bar the complainant from pursuing appropriate civil or statutory remedies.
Case Details
- Case Title: Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10379-10380 of 2023)
- Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
- Date: May 12, 2026
