The Supreme Court on March 4, 2025 directed States to consider framing guidelines to ensure patients are not “exploited” or compelled by private hospitals to buy medicines, implants, consumables and medical devices at inflated prices from their own pharmacies or outlets.
The court, at the same time, cautioned the States from taking a hard line while formulating the guidelines that may affect private investment in the health sector.
A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant took a balanced view that States, until they develop the infrastructure, would need private hospitals to fill in the gaps in their health sector.
“Not only people, but States look to private hospitals for providing basic and specialised service to the public at large,” the court noted.
The hearing was based on a plea filed by petitioner-in-person Siddharth Dalmia. Mr. Dalmia said in court that he had personally felt the brunt of the exploitation when a relative had undergone extensive treatment at a private hospital.
Refraining from commenting on the merits of Mr. Dalmia’s allegations of “exploitation” and unreasonable charges levied by private hospitals, the Bench said it merely wanted to sensitise the State governments to the situation. The court said the issue raised in the petition amounted to the taking of a policy decision. The subject of health and sanitation, hospitals and dispensaries were State subjects. The policy-makers of each State had to take a call on the measures they wanted to adopt, the court noted.
“It will not be advisable for the court to issue mandatory conditions that would hamper the establishment of hospitals by the private sector,” the Bench struck a cautionary note in its order.
Disposing of the petition, the court said it merely wanted to draw the attention of the States to the constitutional framework.
The court said the States and their policy-makers would be the best judges of whether they wanted to introduce a policy that would have a cascading effect on private investment in the health sector.
“Should the States, obliged to adopt economic policies dedicated to development of basic health infrastructure, take stringent measures in the meanwhile that may discourage private entities? These are policy decisions,” the Bench reasoned.
The court recorded Mr. Dalmia’s submissions that affordable medical assistance was important for one and all and amounted to protection of the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Besides, Mr. Dalmia argued, States had a duty to ensure social and economic justice by providing all classes of citizens the requisite health infrastructure under the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution. The Hindu