The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a petition challenging a Kerala High Court verdict that laid down detailed guidelines for private hospitals, including mandatory public display of services and package rates, while granting interim protection to hospital association members from coercive action.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Kerala government and other authorities on a plea filed by the Kerala Private Hospitals Association and Hussain Koya Thangal. The court posted the matter for hearing on February 3 and directed that no coercive steps be taken against the association’s members until then. The bench also allowed the Centre to be impleaded as a party and asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to assist the court.
The challenge arises from a November 26 judgment of a division bench of the Kerala High Court, which upheld a June 23 order of a single judge rejecting objections to several provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018 and the accompanying Rules. While dismissing appeals against the single judge’s ruling, the division bench issued a set of guidelines aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the law.
The High Court had emphasized that the Act is a welfare legislation and expressed concern over delays in its enforcement. It observed that, but for interim relief granted earlier, it would have imposed heavy costs on appellants for failing to comply with the statute years after it came into force, thereby depriving citizens of the intended benefits.
Among the key directions, the High Court required every clinical establishment to prominently display, in both Malayalam and English, a list of services offered along with baseline and package rates for commonly performed procedures. These details are to be made available at reception or admission desks and on official websites, with a clear note that unforeseen complications or additional procedures would be itemised separately.
The guidelines also mandate the setting up of grievance desks or helplines in all clinical establishments. Each complaint must be registered with a unique reference number and acknowledged immediately through text messages, WhatsApp or physical receipts. Hospitals were further directed to keep all displayed rate lists, brochures and online information current, with any revisions clearly dated.
Non-compliance, the High Court warned, could lead to regulatory action under the Act, including suspension or cancellation of registration and imposition of penalties, without prejudice to civil, criminal or constitutional remedies available to patients. The judgment concluded with a broader emphasis on patients’ rights, stating that the directions were meant to reaffirm the right to dignified, ethical and equitable medical care.
Before the Supreme Court, senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the petitioners, drew attention to these guidelines while pressing for relief. The apex court noted that the High Court itself had restrained authorities from taking coercive steps during the pendency of the proceedings and ordered continuation of that protection. It also clarified that members of the association would continue to register themselves under Section 19 of the Act.
With notices issued and interim protection in place, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing is expected to examine the scope of the High Court’s directions and their impact on private clinical establishments in Kerala.
