Pvt hospitals on ‘gifted’ land must fix free EWS quota for patients: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday held that private hospitals in Delhi which got subsidised land will have to reserve a certain percentage of free beds for economically weak patients. This was already a precondition set by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for giving land at throwaway prices to over 400 hospitals. After the hospitals refused to abide by it on various pretexts,  the matter went to courts.

Dealing with the issue, the Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra in its detailed order said it is mandatory for every hospital that received land at subsidised rates from the DDA to provide free treatment to poor patients. It was agreed that 25 per cent beds will be reserved for economically weak patients in the out-patient department (OPD) and 10 per cent in the in-patient department (IPD) covering all medical costs including consumables.

The Bench noted that since 2002, several orders were issued by the Delhi High Court from time to time in a PIL proceeding filed by NGO, social jurist, directing the private hospitals to fall in line. Although several hospitals decided to comply with the condition, discrepancies were noted in the rollout of benefits provided to poor patients.

 In 2014, the Delhi High Court ruled that hospitals which do not have the clause for providing free treatment specifically written in their lease agreement are not bound to admit poor patients. These hospitals included Moolchand Hospital, St Stephen’s Hospital, among others.

Challenging this order, the Centre informed the court that such an exception cannot be created for a category of hospitals that had received land at cheap rates. Justice Mishra said regardless of whether the clause of providing free treatment to poor patients is mentioned in the lease agreement, all hospitals must conform to this rule. The apex court made it applicable to all hospitals that got cheap land from DDA and directed the Delhi Government to file periodic status reports to ensure hospitals complied with its judgment.

The Bench further warned that any private hospital found flouting the orders of the apex court shall be proceeded with contempt of court action.