[COVID-19] "No one should be turned away from healthcare institutions if costs are too high", SC gives Centre two weeks to issue directions

The Supreme Court today observed that patients who cannot afford treatment for COVID-19 should not be turned away from healthcare institutions.While doing so, the Court asked the Centre to issue directions to states under the Disaster Management Act so that COVID-19 treatment is not unaffordable. .The order was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices R Subhash Reddy and AS Bopanna in a petition filed by Advocate Sachin Jain praying for “cost-related regulations” for treatment of COVID-19 patients in private/corporate hospitals..In his plea, Jain has cited news reports alleging inflated billing by private hospitals. It states,“...when the nation is fighting a battle against the pandemic, all such private hospitals which are running on public land (allotted at concessional rates) or are running under the category of “charitable institutions” should be called upon to provide the hospitalisation and treatment to the Covid-19 patients pro bono publico/ non-profit basis”..Why can't private hospitals built on govt land provide free COVID-19 treatment? Supreme Court seeks reply from Centre.In its affidavit filed before the Court, the Centre said that it had no statutory power under the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 to direct private and charitable hospitals to give free treatment to COVID-19 patients..Jain today submitted that hospitals were charging anywhere between 30 to 50 lakh for treatment, and that many patients have died after not being able to afford the required amount. .However, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the healthcare federation, stated that courts are not in any position to lay down a fixed cost of treatment for hospitals across the country, as the kind of medical facilities and treatment offered varies from state to state.Salve further submitted that the Apex Court should leave individual state matters to the High Courts. He argued,."Each state is grappling with the problem. The workers who are working for one week are to take leave after one week. If a particular hospital is overcharging, then a High Court can take into account the grievance.".On the other hand, Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for an intervening applicant, urged the Court to not leave the matter to the High Courts and instead pass guidelines. .However, the Court remained unimpressed, stating that it knows "how administration of justice needed to be done.".In its order, the Bench has categorically noted that it was not for the Court to lay down a cost chart for COVID-19 treatment. However, it reiterated that not being able to afford COVID-19 treatment should not be a reason for a patient to be turned away from a healthcare institution.."We agree that the cost of medical treatment should not act as a deterrent to access to medical care and that no one should be turned away from doors of health care institutions as costs are too high. There is unanimity that cost of treatment cannot be same in all states. Thus it is ubiquitous to impose a ceiling on the cost of treatment."Supreme Court.While stating that it is neither "inclined" nor "equipped" to decide on the cost of COVID-19 treatment, the Court stated that parties will be allowed to air their views to the Centre so that it can see what directions it can give to states under DM Act.."SG Mehta submits that a government official will meet the parties on July 16 and a solution will be reached within a week. The decision will be placed before this Court for further consideration so that directions can be issued to states under DM Act."Supreme Court.The Court thus gave the Centre two weeks to issue directions in the regard to the states..The petition had made a case that tariffs of other private hospitals should also be regulated by the government on a “fixed cost basis”.Jain had relied on a 2007 judgment in which the Delhi High Court had condemned the conduct of various hospitals in the capital for not adhering to their social commitments despite receiving benefits from the government.