Delhi High Court vacates stay on reservation of 80% ICU beds for COVID-19 patients in 33 private hospitals

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, vacated an order which had stayed the Delhi Government's direction to 33 private hospitals to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID-19 patients. [GNCTD vs Association of Healthcare Providers (India)].A Division Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Subramonium Prasad also took into account the existence of a network of Nodal Officers who can relax the reservation norm for the 33 private hospitals and juggle the ICU beds between COVID-19 and non-COVID19 patients.."In view of the present situation in Delhi, the spiralling cases and the ground reality which is different from how it was when the stay order was passed, the stay order (on reservation) is vacated,"the court said. .The court was hearing Delhi Government's appeal against the stay order which was passed by a single-judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla in the petition preferred by Association of Healthcare Providers (India). .Non-COVID patients cannot be expected to run around: Delhi HC stays direction to pvt hosps to reserve 80% ICU beds for COVID-19 patients.Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, appearing for the Delhi Government, stated that it was not an adversarial litigation and that the reservation would be reviewed in 15 days. .He stated that currently, the COVID-19 situation in Delhi was very critical and there was a huge surge in demand for ICU beds..While questioning government as to how it chose to these 33 private hospitals out of the total number of 115 private hospitals, the court also remarked that the decision was "outdated" as the situation of COVID-19 infection had changed drastically from September..The Court also questioned if ICU beds could be reserved across all the private hospitals in order to bring down the figure of 80%. .Concerns were also raised regarding the fate of critical non-COVID patients who might be turned away despite the availability of ICU beds in reserved category. .ASG Jain responded that the selected 33 private hospitals were the "preferred hospitals" and made up for a large chunk of ICU beds. .He explained that the remaining hospitals had lesser number of ICU beds and also lacked the facility to segregate COVID-19 patients from non-COVID19. ." 33 private hospitals earlier dedicated 1238 ICU beds as against 1742 ICU beds post reservation.. For remaining hospitals, they have on their own reserved 620 beds.. whatever was possible as per their capacity," ASG Jain said. .He also informed that as per the data from the last two weeks, the actual occupancy of ICU beds by non-COVID patients was much lesser than the number of available, non-reserved beds. .Additional Standing Counsel Sanjoy Ghose appeared along with ASG Jain. .The Respondent/Original Petitioner, Association of Healthcare Providers (India) opposed the vacation of stay on the ground that at the time of the formulation of policy in September, no study was conducted by the authorities. .Senior Advocate Maninder Singh asserted that at any point, 50% of ICU beds are required by non-COVID emergency patients. ."Percentage is non-material, vacancy (of ICU beds for non-COVID patients) is the question..shortage can be met by augmentation and not that you can snatch from one category," Singh argued. .After a very detailed hearing, the court observed that the situation in Delhi was dynamic and thus APP-Government "must keep its hand on the pulse". ."Delhi Government has to be more alive to the situation.. which the whole city can see for itself,"the High Court said. .The court acknowledged that a blanket order on reservation of 80% ICU beds in 33 hospitals might not be in the best interest of non-COVID patients. ."No person in a health emergency can be allowed to run from pillar to post when there is a bed available," the Court remarked. .However, in view of the situation which has changed since the stay order was passed, the court proceeded to vacate the order passed by the Single Judge. .The Court referred the matter back to the single-judge and directed the Delhi Government to file an additional affidavit on material information. ."Make sure that none of you take an adjournment.. the 80% order will continue till then," the Court said as it listed the matter before the Single Judge Bench on November 26. .Read the order:.[Read the entire account of the hearing here]