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