Supreme Court urges States to frame policy to deter private hospitals from fleecing patients

The Supreme Court recently urged State governments to take a policy call on how to curb unreasonable charges and the exploitation of patients in private hospitals [Siddharth Dalmia & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotishwar Singh opined that it may not be advisable for the Supreme Court itself to interfere with the issue by issuing mandatory directions.The Court reasoned that if it were to issue such directions, it may hamper the growth of hospitals in the private sector. The Court added that this issue should ideally be dealt with by way of State policies. "Policy-makers are the best equipped to take a holistic view and formulate the guidelines as may be required, to safeguard the patients or their attendants from exploitation while simultaneously, ensuring that there is no discouragement and unreasonable restriction on private entities from entering the health sector," the Court said. .The Court, therefore, directed all States to take a policy call on this issue. "It may not be advisable for this Court to issue mandatory directions which may hamper the growth of hospitals in the private sector; but parallelly, it is necessary to sensitize the State Governments re: the problem of unreasonable charges and exploitation of patients in private hospitals. Consequently, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to all the State Governments to consider this issue and take appropriate policy decisions as they may deem fit," the March 4 ruling said. .The Court was dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea that called for directions to restrain hospitals from compelling patients to buy medicines and medical supplies exclusively from in-house pharmacies at allegedly exorbitant rates.The petitioners claimed that private hospitals and nursing homes were systematically overcharging patients by making it mandatory to buy medicines and medical supplies from their affiliated pharmacies.The case was triggered by the personal experience of the petitioners after a family member underwent treatment for cancer and had to pay exorbitant charges for medicines.The petitioners contended that such practices amounted to economic exploitation and violated the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They further argued that the lack of regulatory mechanisms had enabled private hospitals to impose unreasonable charges. They, therefore, sought judicial intervention to prevent such coercive practices..The Court acknowledged that providing medical facilities to all is a fundamental aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, given the country's vast population, the Court observed that States have struggled to build sufficient medical infrastructure. To address this, the government encouraged private entities to establish hospitals, resulting in the growth of renowned private healthcare institutions in India, rivalling top hospitals worldwide."It, therefore, must be acknowledged that not only the people, even the States look towards these private entities to provide basic and specialized medical facilities to the public at large," the Court said.The Court proceeded to observe that it cannot issue any direction that may hamper the growth of private healthcare institutions. Instead, it called on States to take a policy call on such issues. .[Read Judgment]