Siddharth Dalmia v. Union of India
Background
The petitioners filed this public interest writ after the mother of petitioner No. 1 (wife of petitioner No. 2) underwent extensive cancer treatment in 2017-18, during which they claim private hospitals compelled patients to buy medicines, devices and consumables only from in-house pharmacies at inflated prices compared to notified market rates. They sought directions restraining private hospitals from this practice and directing the Union and State Governments to frame a regulatory policy to prevent such exploitation, invoking Article 21 and the Directive Principles under Articles 38, 39 and 47.
Decision Breakdown
The Court acknowledged that access to affordable medical care is an essential part of the right to life under Article 21, and that private hospitals fill a genuine gap in India's healthcare infrastructure that the State alone has not been able to meet. However, it held that regulating hospital pharmacy pricing is fundamentally a policy matter falling within the State List (public health, hospitals and dispensaries), best addressed by policymakers who can balance patient protection against not discouraging private investment in healthcare, and that courts should be cautious about issuing mandatory directions that could hamper the growth of the private hospital sector. The petition was disposed of with a direction to all State Governments to consider the issue and take appropriate policy measures, without expressing any opinion on the substantive merits of the allegations.
Lesson Learnt
The Supreme Court will flag genuine problems of patient exploitation for the attention of policymakers but generally will not itself dictate detailed regulatory or pricing policy where the subject falls within the domain and expertise of the executive and state legislatures.