Above: The Supreme Court of India. Photo: Anil Shakya
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 7) took up the case of Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. (IMCL) which allowed the setting up of a full profit-making hospital on government land that was once offered free with the objective of providing free medical treatment to a substantial number of its patients.
The court’s bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta will be dealing with a case where the Delhi High Court had not only castigated IMCL for neglecting its responsibility towards poor patients and leaning towards the powerful hospital business lobby that caters for the rich, but had also imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh to set up an example.
This comes up – brought up by IMCL – from a petition that the All India Lawyers’ Union (Delhi unit) had filed at the high court against the blatant misuse of power by the IMCL.
When the case came up on Tuesday senior counsel Shyam Diwan appeared on behalf of IMCL and submitted: “We are ready to work as the lease is expiring in 2025. We want to come before court with a solution, but the other party is not cooperating.”
The bench has listed the matter after three weeks.
Backgrounder
In 1986, the Delhi Administration (now the Government of NCT of Delhi), in order to utilize the then incomplete players’ building near Indraprastha Stadium, lying vacant with its medical department, initiated the move to open a multi-disciplinary super specialty hospital on a “no profit no loss” basis, after inviting offers from private institutions.
A notice was issued in this regard which has been placed on record and accordingly, building along with the land was to be made available free of cost provided the hospital is, on the whole, run on a “no profit no loss” basis, providing free medical and other facilities to at least a third of its indoor patients and 40 percent of its outdoor patients without any discrimination.
The hospital was also required to participate in National Health programmes and Delhi Administration was to have due representation in the management committee of the upcoming hospital.
The multi-specialty hospital to be established as contemplated in this agreement was to have been named “Indraprastha Apollo Hospital” or such other name as may be agreed upon between the parties thereto.
The Indraprastha Apollo Hospital was partially commissioned in July 1996. The GNCTD, right from the inception, was requesting IMCL to formulate suitable scheme for providing free treatment to indoor and outdoor patients as set out in the agreement and lease deed. Even in the Board of Directors’ meeting held on January 24, 1997 the then chairman had mentioned that the hospital should consider commencing free patient facility and a committee of directors was also constituted to consider the issue.
The management of company took stand raising two issues that Clause 23 of the Joint Venture Agreement and Clauses 6(1) and 6(2) of the lease deed did not place any obligation upon the company to provide free medical or free consumables. Next, they wanted the definition of poor patients with guidelines on the nature of authorization for such patient referral and monitoring of admission.
In the board meetings held on March 31, 1997 and June 28, 1997, the government reiterated that free beds would include consultation, bed, diet, investigation, nursing, medicines and consumables. In the board meeting of August 20, 1997 the government director had moved a fresh resolution that all victims of the road accidents brought to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital be provided free treatment at the cost of the hospital. However, no decision could be arrived at and consideration of the same was deferred. Thus, the issue of free treatment mostly remained on paper and nothing conclusive and effective came to the help of the needy citizens.
In this background, All India Lawyers’ Union (Delhi) filed its petition on December 10, 1997 impleading the GNCTD through its chief secretary and management of IMCL through its chairman as respondent parties.
Response of IMCL
The company in its affidavit of January 21, 1998 submitted before the court their response to the above which is essentially the stand of the other promoter. The respondent No. 2 in its affidavit dated January 21, 1998 filed with the “limited object of opposing the admission of the writ petition” attempted to trivialize the issues by submitting that the matter involved questions of interpretation of an agreement and contractual obligations arising therefrom which could not be made subject matter of a writ petition.
It described IMCL as a commercial venture jointly undertaken inter alia by the GNCTD, Apollo Group of Hospital and Schroder Capital Partners (Asia) Ltd., through another company providing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), for establishing a modern multi-speciality hospital. It contended that the hospital was meant to be a “self-generating project” wherein cost of free services, if any to be rendered to the poor and needy, would have to be generated from the revenue earned commercially, keeping a balance between the two activities, to be viable.
While submitting that the hospital could not be equated with facilities run by the government with the help of grants to provide free medical aid, IMCL pleaded that its obligations were well defined and clearly set out in the two basic documents namely, the Joint Venture Agreement of March 11, 1988 and the lease deed dated March 16, 1994 executed by the Lt. Governor of GNCTD, neither of which required it to provide free medicines or consumables.
—India Legal Bureau