Today, On 17th September, The Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a plea filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers. The plea challenges the imposition of price control under the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012. The association argues that the price caps on medical services hinder healthcare providers from offering quality treatment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today issued a notice regarding a Writ Petition submitted by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India), a non-profit organization advocating for the healthcare sector.
This petition challenges the validity of Rule 9(ii) of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012.
The Bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, took up the matter after hearing Senior Advocate Malvika Trivedi, representing the petitioner. The case has now been linked with Writ Petition (C) No. 214/2024.
Read Also: Supreme Court Directed Central Government Over Standardized Healthcare Cost Gap
The Bench ordered,
“Issue notice and tag along with Writ Petition (C) No. 214/2024.”
Filed through Advocate-on-Record Vagisha Kochar, the petition contends that the rule, which empowers the Central Government to set rates for medical procedures, exceeds the legislative scope of the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, rendering it unconstitutional.
The petition argues that Rule 9(ii) infringes upon Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguard the rights to equality, freedom of trade, and the right to life. The petitioner asserts that the primary objective of the Clinical Establishments Act is to regulate healthcare quality by setting minimum standards for infrastructure, equipment, and staffing, and does not extend to price regulation of medical procedures.
Furthermore, the petition highlights that the Act is not uniformly applicable across India, only covering specific states and union territories that have adopted it under Article 252(1) of the Constitution.
The petitioner contends that the government’s move to impose price controls on medical services could hinder healthcare innovation, discourage the use of advanced treatment technologies, and result in financial losses for clinical establishments.
The petition further claims,
“Rule 9 sub-rule (2) of the Act provides for the Central Government to prescribe a range of rates for each type of procedure(s). The surreptitious manner in which price control has been introduced by the Government through the Rule(s) is not sanctioned by the Parliament or any State Legislatures. It is an established principle of law that rules cannot extend beyond the scope of the Act/legislation itself.”
The petition also argues that regulating prices for medical services without accounting for complexities, such as different procedural methods, equipment used, and the expertise of medical professionals, is arbitrary and could severely threaten the financial viability of private healthcare institutions.
It warns that standardized pricing might lead to the closure of many clinical establishments, thereby adversely affecting public health.
The association emphasizes the need for balance between public health goals and the financial sustainability of healthcare providers, stressing that price control should not compromise the quality of medical care, which is the Act’s primary objective.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE