LI Network
Published on: October 12, 2023 at 12:48 IST
The Supreme Court issued a notice on October 10 in response to a writ petition calling for the regulation of advertisements by corporate hospitals. The petitioner argued that while private medical practitioners are prohibited from advertising, such restrictions do not apply to corporate hospitals.
A bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia issued the notice to the National Medical Commission, the Union of India, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Narayan Aniruddha Malpani.
The petitioner requested directions to establish comprehensive guidelines for corporate hospitals to ensure safe and ethical advertising and to prevent the indirect breach of statutory regulations by doctors affiliated with these hospitals.
The petitioner claimed that unchecked advertising by corporate hospitals and venture capital-funded healthcare start-ups has created an arbitrary distinction between medical professionals and infringes upon patients’ right to make informed healthcare choices. This not only manipulates and misleads patients but also violates the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14, 19, and 21.
The petitioner argued that these cases of unethical advertising and illegal solicitation of work by corporate hospitals directly contravene the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations of 2002, which prohibit direct or indirect solicitation of work by medical practitioners, whether independent or affiliated with clinics/hospitals. However, corporate hospitals fall under the Clinical Establishments Act (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, rather than the NMC Act, 2019.
This dichotomy results in a situation where the National Medical Commission has limited authority over the advertising strategies employed by corporate hospitals.
The petitioner claimed that such arbitrary intra-class distinctions violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
The petition also referenced the Objects and Reasons of the NMC Act, 2019, which is intended to promote equitable and universal healthcare.
The petitioner argued that unfair advantages for corporate hospitals, making healthcare unaffordable to most citizens, are inconsistent with the Act’s objectives.
The petitioner contended that corporate hospitals cannot use freedom of speech as a pretext to violate the Ethics Regulations of 2002.
The right to advertise is subject to reasonable restrictions, and these regulations fall within that scope. Excessive or misleading advertising in healthcare can lead to uninformed patient decisions and erode the trust between doctors and patients.
The petitioner cited the landmark case of Tata Press Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone-Nigam, stating that commercial advertisements, while protected under freedom of speech, are subject to restrictions. Unethical advertisements by corporate hospitals fall under reasonable restrictions on commercial advertisements within the Constitution’s Article 19(2).
The petitioner called for the establishment of clear guidelines delineating corporate hospital accountability under the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, in cases of Ethics Regulations violations. Additionally, there is a need to harmonize the NMC Act, 2019, with the Clinical Establishments Act to ensure that physicians working with corporate hospitals do not benefit directly or indirectly through these loopholes.
Case Title: Narayan Aniruddha Malpani v. National Medical Commission And Ors, Diary No. 34769-2023 PIL-W
