The bench said the issue of regulating fees charged by private hospitals and other clinical establishments needed to be addressed by the Centre and state governments, either through fresh legislation or amendments to the existing law, according to the order.
Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court has raised concerns over the “huge disparity” in fees and other charges levied by private hospitals and clinical establishments, observing that patients should not be “fleeced” with exorbitant bills merely because they are ill.
The court has also sought district-wise details of private hospitals established with government assistance, including subsidised land or other benefits, and the conditions imposed on them for providing subsidised treatment or treatment to economically weaker sections.
A Lucknow bench of justices Rajan Roy and Manjive Shukla passed the order on a public interest litigation filed by local NGO We The People. The matter will next be heard on September 21.
The bench said the issue of regulating fees charged by private hospitals and other clinical establishments needed to be addressed by the Centre and state governments, either through fresh legislation or amendments to the existing law, according to the order.
In its August 6 order, the court noted that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 was enacted to prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services and improve public health, but apparently did not provide an adequate mechanism to ensure uniformity or rationality in medical treatment charges.
The court referred to Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012, which requires clinical establishments to display rates for services and facilities and charge within the range of rates determined by the Centre in consultation with states.
“Although variations in charges depending upon the nature of establishments may be justified, huge disparity resulting in the common man being fleeced on account of illness and treatment would not be acceptable,” the bench observed.
The court also questioned whether the National Council of Clinical Establishments, mandated under the 2010 Act to develop and periodically review minimum standards, had been established and was functional. It sought similar information regarding the State Council and its functioning in Uttar Pradesh.
The bench directed authorities to provide details of inspections conducted by the Lucknow District Registering Authority under Section 33 of the Act and action taken thereafter.
The authority has also been asked to furnish year-wise details of its functions over the past five years, including whether private clinical establishments were maintaining medical records as required under the rules.
The state government has been directed to file a supplementary affidavit addressing these issues, including the grievance-redressal mechanism available to patients facing deficiencies in services at private hospitals.