Narayana Health & Ors. v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors., 2026 INSC 481
The dispute was between ''Narayana Health & Ors.'' ('''the original defendant''') and ''The State of West Bengal & Ors.'' (''the original complainant & others''). The original defendant made an appeal in the High Court of West Bengal for discharge from charges in a criminal complaint with quashing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC'') – which was rejected. The original defendant (''the hospital & its staff'') approached the Supreme Court of India against the order of the Hight Court of West Bengal (dated 16.05.2023 in C.R.R. No. 967 of 2021 with CRAN No. 1 of 2021). The important legal issue was the differentiation between ''a criminal wrong'' and ''a civil wrong'' within the context of medical services. This matter was presented before the Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe.
The judgment examines whether allegations of billing discrepancies and delays in providing medical records by a hospital are adequate to establish criminal charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter ''IPC 1860'') and the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Regulation and Transparency) Act, 2017 (hereinafter ''WBCEA 2017'').
Smt. Bina Sen who is mother of Kollol Kumar Sen (‘the original complainant-second respondent here’), was admitted in Barasat hospital named as Narayana Multispecialty, for a fractured femur treatment on February 13th, 2021. Post her medical checks, she underwent surgery on February 15th, 2021, and was subsequently discharged from the hospital on February 19, 2021. The complainant first paid the bill amount but on February 20, 2021, reported anomalies in the billing amount and put forward a request for comprehensive medical documents referring to the patient's admission and treatement for insurance reimbursement purpose. The primary disagreement arose from a cost of Rs. 2,500/- for a High-Resolution Computed Tomography test (abbreviated as ''HRCT test''), which was recommended during the medical evaluation but ultimately not conducted.
The hospital, upon being apprised by the complainant on the billing discrepancy, issued an updated correct bill on February 23, 2021. The hospital emailed the amended bill to the complainant on February 24, 2021, requesting that the complainant either collect the refund sum of Rs. 2,500 in person or provide bank details for the refund. Notwithstanding the Hospital''s response, the complainant submitted a complaint (''Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021'') to the Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. The grievance asserted infractions of Sections 406 (''Criminal Creach of Trust''), 420 (''Cheating''), and 120B (''Criminal Conspiracy'') of the IPC 1860, as well as Section 34 of the WBCEA 2017. The charges included intentional overcharging, delayed delivery of medical records, and intimidation by hospital personnel. The criminal motion commenced, and a summon was issued by the Judicial Magistrate on March 11, 2021. The appellants contested this criminal case and also initiated the proceedings before the High Court pursuant to section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court set aside the summons in its ruling of May 16th, 2025, but remanded the subject for re-evaluation which need to handle by trial court.
The hospital approached in appeal against the decision of High Court in the current appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
The appellants (Narayana Health & Ors.) strongly argued that the putting criminal charge on them was a significant misuse of judicial procedure with mala fide intention, to transform a civil dispute into a criminal one. The main contention was that the original complaint lacked the basic ingredients of the purported offenses under the IPC 1860.
Lastly, the appellant claimed that the billing discrepancies and medical data alleged delay directly fit within the designated redressal mechanism established by the WBCEA 2017, rendering criminal prosecution non-sustainable.
There was no representation from Kollol Kumar Sen (‘the original complainant-second respondent here’) in the Supreme Court, hence an amicus curiae Mr. Gagan Gupta, Senior Advocate, was requested to assist. The prima facie accusations in his initial complaint, served as the foundation for the proceedings.
The complainant cited Section 34 of the WBCEA 2017, which concludes these actions as a formulation criminal offense under the obligations and Rules established for clinical establishments by the law, so serving as a foundation for criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court's analysis was based on the grounds set forth in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal1, which specify the criteria for the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC by the High Courts. The Court evaluated the allegations to make sure whether the allegations prima facie indicate the commission of any cognizable offence.
The Court initially examined the alleged infringements under the IPC 1860.
Sbsequently alleged infriengements under the WBCEA 2017 was examined by the Court. The WBCEA 2017 creates a thorough and independent legislative framework for the regulation of clinical facilities. It specifies clear obligations for hospitals, including fair billing practices and timely provision of medical records. The legislation creates a comprehensive adjudicatory structure, consisting of an Adjudicating Authority (Section 35) and a Regulatory Commission (Section 36), to resolve complaints concerning service inadequacies, invoicing discrepancies, and the denial of record access. The Court concluded that the complainant''s allegations represented the particular "deficiencies" that the statutory framework aimed to address through sanctions and compensation as specified in Section 29. The lawmakers sought to create a specific forum for these disputes instead of criminalizing all service-related grievances. The application of Section 34 for criminal liability was unwarranted due to the lack of explicit charges of a criminal offense.
The Supreme Court concluded that the current criminal proceedings against the appellants would amount to an abuse of the Court''s procedure. The Court noted that the claims in the complaint, even if entirely regarded as authentic, do not disclose the essential components of any criminal conduct under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of the IPC 1860.
The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that a dispute between a hospital and a patient regarding billing errors or delays in the provision of medical records, regulated by a statutory framework permitting civil and regulatory remedies, cannot constitute the basis for criminal prosecution unless the essential elements of a criminal offense, such as dishonest intent from the outset, are clearly established. The Court noted that the complainant''s matter might have been addressed under the WBCEA 2017, as it relates to a civil remedy rather than an attempt to initiate criminal proceedings, which are fundamentally criminal in nature. The appeals are approved, and the decision and decree dated May 16th, 2023, rendered by the High Court, is nullified.
The criminal complaint in Complaint Case No. C-533 of 2021, presently before the Judicial Magistrate, Barasat, has been rejected. The Court observed in obiter dictum that the dismissal of the criminal accusation would not hinder the complainant''s right to seek any other civil or legislative remedies available to him, including those under the WBCEA 2017.
This verdict is a crucial judicial pronouncement that reaffirms the differentiation between civil wrongs and criminal violations, especially in the healthcare domain. It offers significant protection to medical facilities and people from baseless criminal prosecution arising from issues relating to services, including billing or administrative delays. The Supreme Court has upheld the principle of statutory remedy and has mitigated the misuse of the criminal justice system by directing the complainant to the specialized grievance redressal mechanism created by the state legislature.
The judgement confirms the legal principles concerning the use of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC and directs High Courts to scrutinize the complaint meticulously to determine the presence of a valid criminal issue before permitting the case to proceed. This ruling supports a fair legal system that resolves patient complaints through appropriate channels rather than exposing healthcare professionals to criminal prosecution for basic service shortcomings. It underscores the need of legislative frameworks intended to control certain sectors and guarantees that these processes are not circumvented in favour of unwarranted criminal behaviour.