Doctors owe a constitutional duty to treat the havenots: Supreme Court

The bench, which gave a massive 124-page judgment on the issue, indeed took a grim view of hospitals claiming to be charitable institutions.

The relief of the poor is one of the essential requirements of the charity. All hospitals are not charitable institutions as there may be hospitals which run commercially. The hospitals, which are operating under the guise of charity, are in fact being run on a commercial basis and it has become impossible for the poor to afford the lifesaving drugs at an affordable price . their right to life is in jeopardy. Merely by the expression hospital, it could not be successfully claimed by the respondenthospitals that they are charitable. They can be directed to fulfill their obligation and fulfill the purpose by undertaking charitable activities and give it the real meaning by giving free services as envisaged in the policy.

The bench analyzed in detail the history and the cases of Moolchand Hospital, St Stephens Hospital, Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer in detail, slamming them for refusing the government directions on free treatment

It is regrettable that the land had been obtained by Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Trust which claims to be charitable and St. Stephens Hospital run by the Missionaries admittedly for charity, are questioning the very conditions for which they have come into being and it appears with the passage of time they have lost the very purpose of their establishment. In our opinion they should have welcomed the conditions imposed by the Government, considering their objectives and for the purpose, they have obtained the land. Two other hospitals, namely, Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research and Foundation for Applied Research in Cancer also cannot wriggle out of their such obligations.

The action of the State cannot be said to be unauthorized, illegal or arbitrary in any manner whatsoever and is in furtherance of the very objectives for which the medical profession exists, it added

The court also made important observations in the light of growing commercialisation of healthcare, the court observed

It is very unfortunate that by and large the hospitals have now become centers of commercial  exploitation and instances have come to notice when a dead body is kept as security for clearance of bills of hospitals which is per se illegal and criminal act. In future, whenever such an act is reported to the police, it is supposed to register a case against management of Hospital and all concerned doctors involved in such inhumane act, which destroys the basic principles of human dignity and tantamount to a criminal breach of the trust reposed in the medical profession.

The hospitals nowadays have fivestar facilities. The entire concept has been changed to make commercial gains. They are becoming unaffordable. The charges are phenomenally high, and at times unrealistic to the service provided. The dark side of such hospitals can be illuminated only by sharing obligation towards economically weaker sections of the society. It would be almost inhuman to deny proper treatment to the poor owing to economic condition and when hospitals claim that they are doing charity at their own level, we find impugned order dated 2.2.2012 is simply an expression to the aforesaid activity which has been given a channelized form.

The bench categorically stated that the poor cannot be deprived of treatment, because of the economic disability

The poor cannot be deprived of the treatment by the best physician due to his economic disability in case he requires it. It is the obligation on the medical  professionals, hospitals, the State and all concerned to ensure that such person is  given treatment and not deprived of the same due to poverty. That is what is envisaged  in the Constitution also. On the making of a doctor, the State spends and invests a huge amount of public money and it is the corresponding obligation to serve the  needy and the treatment cannot be refused on the ground of financial inability of the patient to bear it. To such an extent, the right and moral obligation can be enforced and that precisely has been done by issuance of the impugned directions to provide free treatment in IPD and OPD to economically weaker sections of society. They have suffered so long and benefit has not percolated down to them of distributive justice and they are deprived of equal justice and proper treatment due to lack of financial means.

With these observations,  the apex court upheld the order of the Delhi government further asking the Delhi government to provide periodic reports on compliance with its order. The court added that hospitals that resist will lose their license.

Read Also: Private Hospitals on Subsidized land will treat poor for free, or face Shutdown: Supreme Court