States have failed...: Supreme Court on inflated drug prices in private hospitals

Supreme Court questioned the regulation of private hospital pharmacies, expressing doubts over enforcement while acknowledging inflated drug prices. The bench challenges state inaction and highlights patient choices in healthcare access.

In Short

• Supreme Court questions states' role in regulating private hospital pricing
• Petitioner claims private hospitals overcharge for medicines and devices
• Court doubts effectiveness of judicial orders in regulating hospital pricing

The Supreme Court on Monday took a critical stance on the role of states in regulating private hospitals, as it heard a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged overpricing of medicines and medical devices by hospital pharmacies.

The PIL sought directions to prevent private hospitals from compelling patients to purchase medicines exclusively from their in-house pharmacies, where prices are reportedly exorbitant compared to the open market.

During the hearing, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh expressed scepticism over the effectiveness of issuing judicial directives on the matter. "Do you think states are unaware of this?" the court asked, suggesting that state governments have failed in their duty to regulate pricing in private healthcare facilities.

The court acknowledged the concerns raised by the petitioner but questioned the feasibility of enforcement. "In principle, we may agree that this is happening, but what is the point of passing an order that cannot be implemented?" it said, indicating the practical difficulties in regulating privately-run hospitals.

Highlighting the patient's predicament, the court observed that patients admitted to hospitals are primarily focused on their treatment and recovery. "When a patient is in the hospital, what is their priority? They do not want to annoy the doctor or anyone else because their priority is to save the patient," the bench noted.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that medicines and devices are sold at significantly higher prices within hospital premises, which places an undue financial burden on patients. The court, however, remained unconvinced about the necessity of judicial intervention. "What is the law under which states can regulate private hospitals? Private hospital owners will simply argue that they have created five-star facilities and are providing premium services. They will say, please go enjoy government hospitals instead".

Emphasizing the need for realistic judicial directions, the court cautioned against issuing ineffective orders. "A court direction should not become a matter of joke. Issuing directions is a serious job. If we issue directions today, and tomorrow they turn into a mockery, that should not happen," the bench warned.

Futhermore, the petitioner contended that patients should not be forced to pay exorbitant amounts for essential medicines. In response, the court questioned the existence of formal complaints. "Have you seen any patients complaining about being forced? Patients usually raise grievances only in cases of extreme casualties when a consumer complaint is filed. Otherwise, what do they say? The doctor is like God to me".

Drawing comparisons between government and private hospitals, the bench observed that premier public institutions like AIIMS operate under immense pressure, with doctors working tirelessly. "Go to AIIMS and you will realise — even the Supreme Court pales in comparison to them. They work for hours and hours without respite," the court said.

In a sharp critique of patient choices, the court remarked, "You want to go to a five-star hospital but get food from a roadside dhaba? Where is the compulsion to go to a private hospital? Why can’t patients opt for government hospitals?"

The court concluded by asserting that if government hospitals lacked facilities, it could summon the states for accountability, but questioned how such oversight could extend to private healthcare institutions.