Issuing a slew of guidelines, the high court had said each clinical establishment shall prominently display, in Malayalam as well as in English, at the reception or admission desk and on its official website — a list of the services offered and the baseline and package rates for commonly-performed procedures, with a note that unforeseen complications or additional procedures shall be itemised
NEW DELHI:The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a petition challenging a Kerala High Court verdict that issued a slew of guidelines, including asking clinical establishments to prominently display a list of the services offered and package rates.
A division bench of the high court delivered the verdict on November 26 while dismissing appeals against an order of a single-judge bench that rejected a plea challenging various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018.
The plea filed in the apex court by the Kerala Private Hospitals Association and one Hussain Koya Thangal came up for hearing on Tuesday before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
The bench issued a notice to the Kerala government and others, seeking their responses to the petition, and posted it for hearing on February 3.It also directed authorities not to take any coercive steps against the members of the association till the next date of hearing.
The top court noted that the high court had also directed the authorities not to take any coercive steps against the members of the association during the pendency of the matter.
Allowing the petitioners to implead the Centre as a party in the matter, the bench asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist it.
It said the members of the association will continue getting themselves registered under section 19 of the Act.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing the petitioners in the matter, referred to the guidelines issued by the high court’s division bench.
Upholding the June 23 order of the single-judge bench, the high court’s division bench had issued the guidelines to ensure effective implementation of the Act, consistent with its objectives and the spirit of its preamble.
“Normally, we would have imposed heavy cost on the appellants for not taking any steps to implement or comply with the provisions of the Act, which is a welfare legislation, for more than seven-eight years after it came into force, thereby depriving the citizens of the State of their fundamental rights and the benefits contemplated under the Act,” the division bench had said.
It had refrained from doing so in view of the interim relief granted by the single judge and the division bench during the pendency of the proceedings.
Issuing a slew of guidelines, the high court had said each clinical establishment shall prominently display, in Malayalam as well as in English, at the reception or admission desk and on its official website — a list of the services offered and the baseline and package rates for commonly-performed procedures, with a note that unforeseen complications or additional procedures shall be itemised.
Besides other guidelines, it had said every clinical establishment shall maintain a grievance desk or helpline and register every complaint with a unique reference number, issuing an acknowledgement immediately through text messages, WhatsApp or in the physical form.
“All displayed rate lists, brochures and website information shall be kept current. Any change in services, rates or grievance contact details shall be promptly updated, with the date of revision clearly indicated,” the high court had said.
It had said non-compliance of these guidelines shall attract regulatory action under the Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration and imposition of penalties, in addition to any civil, criminal or constitutional remedies available to patients.
“Let this judgment serve not merely as a declaration of law but as a reaffirmation of the right to dignified, ethical and equitable medical care,” it had said.
The single judge of the high court had rejected a plea challenging various provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Rules, 2018.
The plea filed had challenged certain provisions of the Act, including the obligation to publish the list of fees to be charged for each item of treatment and for “packages”.