央广网北京11月18日消息（记者孙莹）据中央广播电视总台中国之声报道，现在很多人身体有些不 舒服，会在网上先查下应该看什么科、哪家医院哪些医生在这个专业比较权威等。可是"没病的说成有 病，小病的当成大病"，类似的虚假宣传、过度医疗现象在现实中并不鲜见。小林因身体出现红疹，到 网上搜索到的一家医院就诊，前后花了6万多元还没好转，而且这家医院根本不是对外声称的"三甲老医 院"，而是被行政监管部门认定的"一级医院"。 小林起诉医院虚假陈述、诱导消费、过度治疗，构成欺诈，北京市第三中级人民法院日前通报终审 判决结果，认定被告医院的行为构成欺诈，依据《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》的规定，判决医 院退还小林所有医疗费，并三倍赔偿。医疗机构哪些行为会被认定构成欺诈？ 网上"正规三甲老医院"治红疹花费6万多元 2023年5月，小林身上起了红疹感觉不适，在网络上搜索到某医院的信息。咨询过程中，这家医院 工作人员称，他们医院是"综合性国家正规三甲老医院"，小林就放心地到这家医院就诊。 北京市第三中级人民法院民一庭法官助理欧阳志玉介绍："被告医院诊断小林患有皮肤丘疹、炎症 等病症，并为他制定了激光磨削术等四项诊疗方案以及可替代 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court has clarified the application of consumer rights protection laws in medical disputes, emphasizing the "refund and triple compensation" punitive damages standard to encourage medical institutions to operate with integrity [1][5]. Group 1: Case Summaries - A typical case involved a consumer, Lin Yang, who was misled by a hospital claiming to be a comprehensive national three-tier hospital, leading to unnecessary treatments and expenses totaling over 62,000 yuan [2][3]. - The court ruled that the hospital engaged in fraudulent practices, including false advertising and excessive medical treatment, and ordered the hospital to refund the medical fees and pay triple compensation [3][4]. Group 2: Legal Framework and Implications - The court has recognized the overlap between the identities of "patients" and "consumers," indicating that consumer rights protection laws should apply to medical disputes where patients are treated as consumers and medical institutions as profit-driven entities [4][5]. - The court outlined specific criteria for applying consumer rights protection laws in medical service contracts, including the nature of the medical institution as a profit-oriented entity and the voluntary formation of service contracts by patients [5].

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversy over the minimum recharge amount of 50 yuan on third-party platforms raises concerns about consumer rights and market competition, as major telecom operators have stopped offering lower recharge options, potentially infringing on consumer choice [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Impact - Telecom operators have cited contract expirations and restrictions on third-party channels as reasons for the increased minimum recharge amount, which has led to negative public sentiment regarding consumer rights [1]. - The cancellation of lower recharge options limits consumer choices and may be viewed as a monopolistic practice that undermines market competition [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Framework - The Anti-Monopoly Law defines "market dominance" and outlines the implications of abusing such a position, including the ability to control prices and restrict market entry for competitors [1]. - The Consumer Rights Protection Law grants consumers the right to choose products and services freely, and the imposition of a minimum recharge amount could be seen as a form of "forced transaction" [2]. Group 3: Potential Consequences for Operators - If operators are found to abuse their market position, they could face administrative penalties, including orders to cease illegal activities, confiscation of illegal gains, and fines ranging from 1% to 10% of the previous year's sales [3]. - Operators may also be liable for civil damages if their monopolistic actions cause losses to others, with compensation covering actual and expected losses [3]. Group 4: Recommendations for Operators - Instead of raising the minimum recharge limit to boost revenue, operators should focus on improving service quality and innovation to build consumer trust and ensure sustainable growth [3].