The Supreme Court criticized state governments for failing to provide affordable medical care and essential drugs for low-income individuals, which has led to the rise of private hospitals. A Public Interest Litigation revealed that private hospitals force patients to buy medicines from their pharmacies at marked-up prices. The court emphasized the states’ responsibility to regulate these entities and prevent exploitation. It called for the creation of guidelines by the central government to protect citizens from being coerced by private hospitals. Various states defended their actions by citing reliance on central price control orders and existing fair-price shops.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court criticized state governments on Tuesday for their inability to provide affordable medical care and proper infrastructure. It highlighted the lack of reasonably-priced medicines, especially essential drugs, available to economically disadvantaged individuals.
This shortfall, the court remarked, had “facilitated and promoted private hospitals.”
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and NK Singh was examining a Public Interest Litigation that contended private hospitals were forcing patients and their families to purchase medications, implants, and other medical items from their in-house pharmacies, which charged excessive mark-ups.
The PIL urged that private hospitals should not mandate purchases solely from their pharmacies and asserted that both the central and state governments had neglected to implement regulatory and corrective measures, leading to patient exploitation.
“We agree with you… but how do we regulate this?” Justice Surya Kant inquired.
The court ultimately emphasized the responsibility of states to ensure adequate medical care.
It also noted that certain states have failed to provide necessary medical services, thereby “facilitating and promoting private entities.”
These state governments were instructed to regulate such entities.
They were directed to make certain that private hospitals do not coerce patients and their families to purchase from hospital pharmacies, particularly when identical drugs or products are available at lower prices elsewhere.
In the meantime, the central government was tasked with devising guidelines to protect citizens from potential exploitation by private hospitals and medical institutions.
However, the court also expressed that it might not be advisable to issue mandatory orders, but it is imperative to raise awareness among state governments regarding this matter.
The Supreme Court had previously issued notices to the states concerning this issue.
Several states, including Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan, submitted counter-affidavits.
Regarding medicine pricing, these states indicated they depended on price control orders from the central government, stating that prices for essential drugs are regulated to maintain reasonable availability.
In their responses, states also questioned the locus standi, or the right to represent an individual or group, of the petitioners, noting the establishment of fair-price shops for government-operated hospitals. In response, the court mentioned, “We note that many states have emphasized state-run schemes designed to ensure that drugs, medical consumables, and medical services are accessible at affordable prices.”
The central government also submitted a reply, asserting that patients are not obligated to purchase medicines exclusively from hospital pharmacies.