Mandates Fee Display, Backs Authority’s Power to Cancel Registration with Safeguards
Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has upheld key provisions of the Kerala Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2018, dismissing multiple petitions filed by prominent doctors’ associations including the Indian Medical Association (IMA), Kerala Private Hospitals Association, and Indian Dental Association.
The court validated the requirement for all clinical establishments to display service fees and package rates prominently in both Malayalam and English, a move aimed at promoting transparency and protecting patient rights. Despite objections over undefined terms like “fee rate” and “package rate”, the court observed that this mandate had already been addressed in previous judgments and was legally sound.
No Unguided Power in Registration Cancellation
The petitioners also contested Section 25 of the Act, which allows authorities to cancel the registration of a clinical establishment under specific conditions. However, the bench clarified that this power is not arbitrary but subject to due process, including:
- Issuing a show-cause notice
- Granting the establishment a hearing opportunity
- Providing an option to appeal and seek High Court review
The court held that these provisions ensure that no uncanalised power is conferred upon the authorities.
Dentistry Rightfully Included in the Act
Another key objection raised was the inclusion of dentistry within the scope of the Act. The petitioners argued this inclusion was beyond legislative competence. However, the court upheld the inclusion, stating that dentistry is an integral part of modern medicine, and the State Legislature was well within its rights to regulate it.
Patients’ Welfare Representatives Valid in Expert Bodies
The court also rejected challenges to Sections 3 and 8, which mandate the inclusion of representatives from patients’ welfare organisations in the State Council and Executive Committee. Observing the presence of service provider representatives (like IMA and IDA), the bench ruled that inclusion of service recipients was essential for a balanced regulatory framework.
No Grounds for Striking Down the Act
Dismissing claims of arbitrariness and vagueness, the court reiterated that a law can be struck down only on the grounds of legislative incompetence, violation of fundamental rights, or breach of constitutional provisions—none of which were demonstrated by the petitioners.
The court also cited Supreme Court rulings, including State of A.P. v McDowell & Co. and State of Punjab v Shiv Ram, to emphasize the need for external regulation in the medical field.
Court Leaves Door Open for Practical Concerns
While upholding the Act in its entirety, the High Court allowed petitioners to raise practical implementation concerns before the State Government. It directed the Government to consider and address such issues through remedial measures.
This judgment is seen as a significant win for healthcare transparency and patient rights, while also balancing the concerns of medical service providers through regulatory safeguards.
