In a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) highlighting allegations that private hospitals are compelling patients to purchase medicines and other essentials exclusively from hospital-designated pharmacies, the Supreme Court today strongly criticized states across the country for their failure to ensure adequate healthcare infrastructure. The court emphasized the need for better regulatory oversight and expressed concern over the growing burden on patients due to such restrictive practices in private healthcare facilities.
The Court observed that this failure has paved the way for the establishment of private hospitals, which, despite being renowned and specialized, have become the primary healthcare providers for patients across all economic backgrounds. It emphasized that the lack of adequate public medical infrastructure has forced people to rely heavily on private healthcare facilities, further deepening the divide in access to affordable medical treatment.
"...in proportion to the population of this country, the states have not been able to develop the requisite medical infrastructure to cater the needs of all kinds of patients. The states have therefore facilitated and promoted private entities to come forward in the medical field, as a result of which, numerous renowned private hospitals, well known for their specialties, and which are no less than any hospital [all over] the globe, have been setup through the country...Not only the people, eventhe state also look for these private entities to provide basic and specialized medical facilities to the public at large”, observed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh.
Speaking of states’ duty in terms of Part IV of the Constitution (Directive Principles of State Policy), the Court further opined that, “Provision of medical facilities to one and all is a right traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution. The states are therefore committed themselves to provide the medical facilities to people in furtherance of their duty envisioned in Part IV of the Constitution.”
Against this backdrop, the Court also raised concerns about whether it would be advisable for the Union and State governments to introduce a policy that strictly regulates every aspect of operations within private hospital premises. The Court questioned whether such a policy could have unintended consequences, potentially creating a cascading effect that might discourage individuals and organizations from investing in the healthcare sector. It emphasized the need to strike a balance between regulation and fostering a conducive environment for the growth of medical infrastructure.
Ultimately, the Court directed the states to independently assess the matter and formulate appropriate policy decisions as they deem fit. It emphasized that state governments must take a proactive approach in addressing the concerns raised while ensuring that any regulatory measures strike a balance between protecting patients’ rights and maintaining a sustainable healthcare ecosystem.
info@adhwaitha.com
