New Delhi, Apr 29 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday sought response from the Centre on a plea raising the issue of determination of rate chargeable from the patients in the hospitals.
The apex court was hearing a plea which said that Rule 9 of the Clinical Establishments (Central government) Rules 2012, which deals with other conditions for registration and continuation of clinical establishments, should not be implemented.
Rule 9 provides that among others, every clinical establishment shall charge the rates for each type of procedures and services within the range of rates determined and issued by the Central government from time to time in consultation with the state governments.
During the hearing, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed how can there be fixed fees.
“It all depends upon the market forces. A particular doctor may charge Rs 10,000, other may charge Rs 1,000,” it said, adding it may lead to “under-table practice”.
“We will issue notice in this matter,” the bench said.
It said the plea would be heard along with another pending petition, which has sought a direction to the Centre to determine the rate of fee chargeable from the patients in terms of Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules.
The apex court has posted the matter for hearing on September 10.
While hearing the pending plea in February this year, the apex court had noted that the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the Centre itself had notified the rates which were applicable to the CGHS empaneled hospitals and till a solution was found, the government can always notify the said rates as an interim measure.
The counsel appearing for the Centre had then told the top court that in view of the provisions of Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules, “the rates cannot be determined by the Central government unless there is a response from the state governments/Union Territories”.
“We, therefore, direct the Secretary, Department of Health, Union of India, to hold a meeting with his counterparts in the state governments/Union Territories and come with a concrete proposal by the next date of hearing,” the bench had said in its February 27 order. PTI ABA AS AS
