The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court expressed serious concern over the wide disparity in treatment charges levied by private hospitals and clinical establishments, observing that exploiting patients through exorbitant medical fees amounts to the “virtual looting” of common citizens and cannot be permitted.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla made the observations while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the organisation ‘We the People’. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on September 21.
The Court directed both the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments to examine whether existing legal provisions adequately regulate fees charged by private hospitals. It said authorities should consider introducing fresh legislation or amending current laws if required to ensure reasonable and equitable treatment costs.
Seeking greater accountability, the Bench also called for district-wise details of private hospitals that have received government assistance, including land allotted at concessional rates or other benefits. The Court has sought information regarding the conditions attached to such concessions and the arrangements made for providing subsidised treatment to economically weaker patients.
During the hearing, the Court noted that the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 aims to prescribe minimum standards for healthcare facilities and improve public health services. However, it observed that the Act does not appear to contain an effective mechanism to ensure uniformity and rationality in treatment charges.
While acknowledging that some variation in fees may be justified based on infrastructure and available facilities, the Bench stated that arbitrary billing linked solely to the severity of a patient’s illness is unacceptable.
The Court also referred to Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012, which requires hospitals and clinical establishments to publicly display rates for services and facilities. The rules also provide that institutions should charge fees within limits fixed by the Central Government in consultation with state governments.
Further, the Bench sought clarification on whether the National Council for Clinical Establishments, envisaged under the 2010 Act, has been constituted.
The Lucknow District Registration Authority has been directed to submit a year-wise report on inspections conducted at private clinical establishments over the past five years and the action taken under Section 33 of the Act. The authority has also been asked to indicate whether hospitals are complying with rules regarding the maintenance of patient medical records and whether inspections have been conducted to verify such compliance.
The Court’s observations come amid growing concerns over the rising cost of private healthcare and the absence of a uniform framework governing hospital charges.
