New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra issued notice in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the rule regarding the fixation of rates for procedures and services by clinical establishments. The plea has been filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India) challenging the constitutionality of Rule 9(ii) of Clinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012 as ultra vires the parent Act – The Clinical Establishment Act, 2010.
The Petition said “The surreptitious manner in which a price control has been sought to be introduced by Government through the Rule(s) is not sanctioned by the Parliament or by any State Legislatures. It is established principle of law that rules cannot go and travel beyond the scope of the Act/ legislation itself.” Rule 9(ii) under the “Other conditions for registration and continuation of clinical establishments” states “The clinical establishments 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.” The petitioner contends that the increasing technological advancements in medical procedures make it difficult to stick to fixed rates considering the increased investments into the procedures and implants. The price ceilings may therefore become an obstacle in adopting medical advancements for the clinical establishments.
The Petition further states that the Parent Act came into effect on 01.03.2012 for the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Sikkim and Union Territories, namely, Puducherry, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Lakshadweep, Jammu & Kashmir, vide gazette notification dated 28.02.2012. Subsequently, 8 other States, namely, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Assam, Haryana and Telangana have adopted the Act. Section 56 of the Act states that “The provisions of this Act shall not apply to the States in which the enactments specified in the Schedule are applicable”, unless such states adopt the Act under clause (1) of article 252 of the Constitution. “Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the Parent Act is not applicable throughout the country but is limited to States that have adopted the and to Union Territories.” The Parent Act however remains silent on about the need to regulate the pricing of medical services. “Notably, the Parent Act does not address or concern itself with the pricing of medical services in accordance with these standards.” Therefore, it is contended that Rule 9(ii) by mandating the fixation of prices of the medical services ‘oversteps’ the Parent Act.