HYDERABAD: Observing that prolonged litigation over petty disputes causes financial and personal stress besides adding to the judicial backlog, the Telangana High Court has cautioned against an insistence on winning every minor disagreement.
Justice B Vijaysen Reddy made the observation while questioning the wisdom of a litigant pursuing a legal battle across multiple judicial forums, including the Supreme Court, over a Rs 200 registration fee charged by Apollo Hospitals.
A bench of Justice B Vijaysen Reddy and Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy was hearing a writ petition filed by Shankar, a resident of Visakhapatnam, challenging the collection of Rs 200 as registration charges when he visited Apollo Hospitals as an outpatient.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that collecting the registration fee was illegal. The bench, however, questioned whether it was necessary to pursue the dispute before the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and subsequently the Supreme Court before approaching the High Court.
The judges also referred to the petitioner’s medical visit, during which his blood pressure was initially found to be fluctuating but was subsequently recorded as normal following a medical examination.
They questioned why the petitioner had no objection to paying Rs 500 towards the doctor’s consultation but challenged the Rs 200 registration charge.
The bench observed that hospital registration procedures served a legitimate purpose by maintaining patients’ medical histories, previous test reports and health records for future reference. It also remarked that the hospital could have avoided the litigation by simply refunding the amount.
Questioning both parties about the expenditure incurred in pursuing the dispute, the judges observed that the time and resources spent on such litigation were disproportionate to the amount involved.
The bench remarked that a PIL would be an appropriate remedy if the petitioner intended to challenge registration practices followed by hospitals across the state.
Following the court’s observations, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the writ petition, and the bench allowed the withdrawal.
