Private Hospitals May Not Forcibly Retain Recovered Patients Despite Unpaid Dues or Family Refusal to Discharge.

The petitioners (Apollo Hospital) admitted Ms. Poonam Gupta (respondent no. 3) on September 15, 2021, following a severe traumatic head injury

Despite recovering sufficiently for discharge, her husband (respondent no. 8) refused to take her home or pay the outstanding medical bills, which exceeded ₹1.09 Crores (minus insurance portions)

The hospital approached the West Bengal Clinical Establishment Regulatory Commission, which directed them to seek legal recourse

The petitioners sought a court direction for the State to frame guidelines for patients overstaying after discharge and for the transfer of the patient to a state-run facility

The court commissioned an independent medical board from Calcutta Medical College, which concluded that the patient was hemodynamically stable and fit for discharge to home care

The court exercised its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principle of the right to health and medical care, balanced against the operational limitations of private clinical establishments and State-run Shelters for Urban Homeless (SUHs).

The court noted that SUHs under the Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM) are not equipped for medical rehabilitation or post-operative care

The court also applied equity principles regarding the recovery of dues in "peculiar circumstances" where a party is financially insolvent

The court relied heavily on the expert committee report from Calcutta Medical College, which determined that the patient was conscious, stable, and did not require indoor hospitalization, provided she had home-based rehabilitation and periodic tracheostomy care

The State clarified that urban shelters lack the expertise to handle recovering patients, placing the primary responsibility back on the family

The court reconciled the hospital’s right to free up beds for acute patients with the patient's need for continued, though non-indoor, care. It determined that since the patient was fit for discharge, the husband—despite his protests of financial hardship—was legally and morally obligated to resume custody.

To bridge the gap in care, the court leveraged State resources to provide priority outpatient treatment and equipment

The State was ordered to provide a wheelchair free of cost and ensure priority medical treatment at government hospitals if her condition requires review or future admission

The court held that given the respondent's financial state, the hospital shall not claim any further bill amounts from the patient or her husband, though they may pursue insurance claims

Use of this judgment as a precedent was expressly barred due to the "peculiar circumstances" of the case