While observing that the Court could not encroach into policy matters of the government, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest writ petition seeking directions to the Centre to make available generic medicines and medical treatment to the public at large at a reasonable cost.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw had earlier this week said that the Centre and the Delhi Government had already set up public hospitals for providing medical treatment at a reasonable cost. Beyond this, it was not in the domain of the Court to issue any such direction, said the Bench in its 11-page judgment on the petition moved by a non-government organisation Fight for Human Rights.
The Court pointed out that the Department of Pharmaceuticals under the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers had informed it that as many as 164 Jan Aushadhi stores had been opened in different States on the premises of government hospitals, which provide quality generic medicines.
ADVERTISEMENT
“It is not as if the government has not taken the steps in accordance with its Jan Aushadhi scheme. Again, it is a policy decision as to the need for how many stores and at what places has been assessed by the government. This Court cannot encroach into policy matters and cannot start interfering with the decisions taken by the government in this regard, particularly when except for making general averments, no specific allegation has been made,” said the Bench.
The petitioner had submitted that there was no regulatory authority to ensure that medical firms do not overcharge patients. It also contended that non-availability of medicines at affordable prices was a violation of fundamental rights.
The PIL had alleged that no serious steps had been taken to implement the measures envisaged by the government, such as price control of essential medicines, making available generic medicines and giving wide publicity regarding its benefits and availability to the poor people.
ADVERTISEMENT
Referring to the relief claimed regarding cancellation of lease of hospital lands, for giving commissions to doctors for referring patients and for carrying out unnecessary procedures, the Court said leases of land were governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895, and the petition had failed to satisfy as to how such a direction could be issued.
“The petitioner, while filing the petition, appears to have been swayed more by emotion than by law.”
As regards the plea for setting up of a high-powered inquiry committee to probe malpractices in the field of medicine, the Court pointed out that the machinery for this exists under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Code of Ethics Regulations.
No ground for setting up another high-powered committee exists, said the Bench, adding that if the petitioner or any other person had any complaint of malpractice against the hospitals or the doctors, they were entitled to file complaints in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act.