- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
Private Hospitals on Subsidized land will treat poor for free, or face Shutdown: Supreme Court
The apex court stated that any violation of its ruling will not be tolerated and will be treated as contempt
New Delhi: Upholding the observations of the Delhi High court, the Supreme Court has reiterated that all private hospitals in the national capital, which were given land on concessional rate, must provide free treatment to a certain percentage of poor patients.
The bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra also stated that any resistance by the hospitals would lead to cancellation of the lease and sought a periodical report on compliance of its order from the Delhi government.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that many hospitals includingĀ Max Super Specialty Hospital (Saket), Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, Shanti Mukand Hospital, Dharamshila Cancer Hospital, Moolchand Hospitalā were provided lands at concessional rates between 1960 and 1990 on the condition that they will treat the poor free of cost.
Providing treatment to the poor was one of the clauses in the lease deed due to which land was given to hospitals at a very cheap price. It is hence mandatory for private hospitals, built on land allocated by the government on concessional rates, to provide 10 percent treatment to In-Patient Department (IPD) and 25 percent to Out Patient Department (OPD) for free.
The Delhi high court had earlier ruled against private hospitals, acting on a public interest litigation filed by Social Jurist, a not for-profit organisation. The court stated that hospitals had to pay fines for earning profits on beds that had to be reserved for the poor.
Read Also:Ā 5 Delhi Hospitals Fined Rs 600 Crore For Refusing Free Treatment To Poor
Ā In 2016, Delhi government asked five private hospitals in the city, including Fortis Escorts Heart Institute and Max Super Specialty Hospital (Saket), to deposit āunwarranted profitsā of overĀ Rs.Ā 600 crore for refusing free treatment to the poor, the prime condition for land allotment lease. The hospitals approached the High Court and received a stay in the matter
Following this, the government appealed to SC.Ā The main argument put forward by the hospitals stated that treatments are too costly to be provided free, especially drugs, lab tests and surgical procedures. They had instead offered to provide consultancy services free of charge reports Economic times.
New Delhi: Upholding the observations of the Delhi High court, the Supreme Court has reiterated that all private hospitals in the national capital, which were given land on concessional rate, must provide free treatment to a certain percentage of poor patients.
The bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra also stated that any resistance by the hospitals would lead to cancellation of the lease and sought a periodical report on compliance of its order from the Delhi government.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that many hospitals includingĀ Max Super Specialty Hospital (Saket), Fortis Escorts Heart Institute, Shanti Mukand Hospital, Dharamshila Cancer Hospital, Moolchand Hospitalā were provided lands at concessional rates between 1960 and 1990 on the condition that they will treat the poor free of cost.
Providing treatment to the poor was one of the clauses in the lease deed due to which land was given to hospitals at a very cheap price. It is hence mandatory for private hospitals, built on land allocated by the government on concessional rates, to provide 10 percent treatment to In-Patient Department (IPD) and 25 percent to Out Patient Department (OPD) for free.
The Delhi high court had earlier ruled against private hospitals, acting on a public interest litigation filed by Social Jurist, a not for-profit organisation. The court stated that hospitals had to pay fines for earning profits on beds that had to be reserved for the poor.
Read Also:Ā 5 Delhi Hospitals Fined Rs 600 Crore For Refusing Free Treatment To Poor
Ā In 2016, Delhi government asked five private hospitals in the city, including Fortis Escorts Heart Institute and Max Super Specialty Hospital (Saket), to deposit āunwarranted profitsā of overĀ Rs.Ā 600 crore for refusing free treatment to the poor, the prime condition for land allotment lease. The hospitals approached the High Court and received a stay in the matter
Following this, the government appealed to SC.Ā The main argument put forward by the hospitals stated that treatments are too costly to be provided free, especially drugs, lab tests and surgical procedures. They had instead offered to provide consultancy services free of charge reports Economic times.
However, 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.
A detailed judgement on the issue is still awaited.
Meghna A Singhania is the founder and Editor-in-Chief at Medical Dialogues. An Economics graduate from Delhi University and a post graduate from London School of Economics and Political Science, her key research interest lies in health economics, and policy making in health and medical sector in the country. She is a member of the Association of Healthcare Journalists. She can be contacted at meghna@medicaldialogues.in. Contact no. 011-43720751
Next Story