Why Range Of Rates For Hospital Services Not Specified? Supreme Court Slams Centre, Warns Court Might Apply CGHS Rates
The Supreme Court criticised the Central Government's failure to specify the range of rates within which private hospitals and clinical establishments can charge for their treatment services. Although a rule in this regard was framed twelve years ago, the Court noted that it has not been enforced yet.A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a public interest litigation...
The Supreme Court criticised the Central Government's failure to specify the range of rates within which private hospitals and clinical establishments can charge for their treatment services. Although a rule in this regard was framed twelve years ago, the Court noted that it has not been enforced yet.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by NGO 'Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life'. The plea, filed through Advocate-on-Record Danish Zubair Khan, sought the enforcement of Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishment (Central Government) Rules, 2012. This rule mandates that hospitals and clinical establishments display rates for services provided and charge fees within the range determined by the Centre in consultation with state governments.
The Union Government sought to defend itself by alleging that despite repeated attempts to engage with states on this issue, there has been a lack of response. Senior Advocate Shailesh Madiyal, representing the Union of India, informed the court that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, under which the standardised rates are to be determined, have only been adopted by 12 states and seven union territories.
However, this prompted the court to assert that citizens have a fundamental right to healthcare, and the Centre cannot evade its responsibility on these grounds. In this connection, it also cited previous rulings emphasising the State's duty to provide medical assistance to citizens. In its order, the bench noted –
“It has been held that it is the duty of the State to provide medical assistance to the citizens. The Act of 2010 has been enacted with an avowed object of providing medical facilities to the citizens at an affordable price. The Union of India cannot shirk away from its responsibility by merely stating that communication have been addressed to the state governments and union territories and they are not responding.”
Accordingly, the court directed the union health secretary to convene a meeting with state counterparts within a month to “come with a concrete proposal by the next date of hearing” for the notification of a standard rate. If the Centre fails to devise a solution by then, the court warned, it would consider the petitioner-NGO's suggestion to notify the standardised rates applicable to the Central Government Health Services (CGHS)-empanelled hospitals as an interim measure and issue appropriate directions to that effect –
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Union of India itself has notified the rates which are applicable to the CGHS-empanelled hospitals. He submits that till a solution is found the central government can always notify the said rates as an interim measure. Insofar as this suggestion is concerned, in the event the central government does not come out with a concrete proposal by the next date of hearing, we will consider issuing appropriate directions in this regard.”
With these stern instructions, the bench directed the matter to be re-listed for further hearing after six weeks.
Case Details : Veterans Forum for Transparency in Public Life Through Its General Secretary Wing Commander (Retd) Bishwanath Prasad Singh v. Union of India