The petition urged the court to stop private hospitals from making it mandatory for patients to purchase medicines from their own pharmacies. It also accused both central and state governments of failing to regulate these practices. Due to this inaction, patients are being financially exploited.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday, 4th March, The Supreme Court has strongly criticized state governments for failing to provide affordable medical care and infrastructure. The court noted that essential medicines, which should be available at reasonable prices for the poor, are still costly.
This failure, the court observed, has “facilitated and promoted private hospitals.”
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raised concerns over private hospitals forcing patients and their families to buy medicines, implants, and medical items from in-house pharmacies. These hospital pharmacies charge exorbitant mark-ups, causing financial strain on patients.
The petition urged the court to stop private hospitals from making it mandatory for patients to purchase medicines from their own pharmacies. It also accused both central and state governments of failing to regulate these practices. Due to this inaction, patients are being financially exploited.
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the issue, stating,
“We agree with you… but how to regulate this?”
The court made it clear that state governments are responsible for ensuring proper medical care. It further pointed out that some states have failed in this duty, thereby “facilitated and promoted private entities.”
The Supreme Court directed states to ensure that private hospitals do not force patients and their families to buy medicines from hospital pharmacies, especially when the same medicines are available at lower prices elsewhere.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Orders Medical Care for Yasin Malik (JKLF Chief) in Jail
The central government was also instructed to frame guidelines to prevent private hospitals and medical institutions from exploiting citizens.
However, the court expressed reservations about issuing strict mandates, stating that while it may not be advisable for it to impose compulsory rules, it is crucial to “sensitise state governments on this issue.”
Previously, the Supreme Court had issued notices to various states regarding this issue. In response, states like Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan submitted counter-affidavits.
Regarding the pricing of medicines, state governments argued that they follow price control orders issued by the central government, which regulate the cost of essential drugs to keep them affordable.
The states also questioned the legitimacy (locus standi) of the petitioners, suggesting that government-run hospitals have fair-price shops to ensure affordability.
The court acknowledged these claims but emphasized,
“We may hasten to that most states have highlighted state-run schemes which are meant to ensure drugs, medical consumables, and medical services are available at affordable prices.”
The central government also submitted a response, asserting that there is
“no compulsion for patients to buy medicines from hospital pharmacies.”
Case Title: SIDDHARTH DALMIA AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No.337/ 2018
