The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning that if indigent patients are not provided free medical treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, it would consider handing over the facility to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh expressed grave concern over the reported violation of the hospital’s lease agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the Indraprastha Medical Corporation Limited (IMCL), which operates the hospital, was required to provide free medical care to one-third of its indoor patients and 40 percent of its outdoor patients without discrimination.
“If it is established that poor patients are being denied free medical treatment, we will transfer the hospital to AIIMS,” the bench asserted.
The court observed that the hospital, constructed by the Apollo Group on a 15-acre plot in an upscale area of Delhi, was allotted the land on a symbolic lease of just Rs 1. The institution was supposed to function on a ‘no profit, no loss’ model, but instead, it has become a full-fledged commercial enterprise where economically disadvantaged patients struggle to afford treatment.
The legal counsel representing IMCL argued that the hospital operates as a joint venture, with the Delhi government holding a 26 percent stake and benefiting from its revenue.
Justice Surya Kant criticized this, stating, “If the Delhi government is prioritizing profit over the welfare of poor patients, it is an unfortunate and unacceptable situation.”
The court noted that the hospital’s lease agreement was for a 30-year term, set to expire in 2023. It directed the Centre and the Delhi government to clarify whether the lease had been renewed and, if not, to explain the legal measures taken regarding the land.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from IMCL challenging the Delhi High Court’s order dated September 22, 2009. In its ruling, the High Court accused the hospital administration of repeatedly violating its obligation to provide free medical care to underprivileged patients.
The apex court directed the Centre and the Delhi government to submit affidavits detailing the current total bed capacity at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and the number of outpatient department (OPD) patients treated over the past five years. Additionally, the affidavits must specify how many poor patients received free treatment as per recommendations in that period.
Furthermore, the court mandated that the hospital administration fully cooperate with an inspection team and furnish all necessary records to the monitoring authority. The hospital was also granted the liberty to file its affidavit, if necessary, and the matter was scheduled for a follow-up hearing after four weeks.
On September 22, 2009, the Delhi High Court ruled that Indraprastha Apollo Hospital must provide 200 free beds (one-third of the total) with proper space and amenities for indoor patients and ensure free medical care for 40 percent of OPD patients.
Additionally, the High Court ordered that all government hospitals offering general, specialty, or super-specialty services must set up dedicated referral centers within their premises. These centers, integrated with emergency and OPD services, would facilitate immediate referral of critically ill patients to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for free treatment, as authorized by the hospital’s medical superintendent or director.
The High Court issued this directive while addressing a petition filed by the All India Lawyers’ Union (Delhi Unit), represented by advocate Ashok Agrawal.
It further directed that referral records must be prepared in triplicate: one copy for the patient, one for the Director General of Health Services, and one to be retained by the referring hospital.
As per the High Court’s 70-page ruling, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital was obligated to admit such referred patients and provide them free treatment, covering admission, bed charges, medical care, surgical procedures, consumables, and medicines. In other words, these patients were to receive completely cost-free healthcare services.
The court also emphasized the necessity of proper identification and classification of eligible patients for free inpatient care, ensuring that those entitled to such benefits could access them without hurdles.
Additionally, the High Court mandated that the hospital prominently display, both on its premises and in advertisements, that 40 percent of OPD patients are entitled to free treatment.
The hospital administration was also penalized with a fine of Rs 2 lakh for contesting the matter and presenting “frivolous objections” to evade its contractual responsibility of providing free healthcare to the underprivileged, as stipulated in the agreement.
