New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday sharply criticised state governments for failing to provide affordable medical care and infrastructure, particularly in ensuring access to reasonably priced medicines, including essential drugs, for economically disadvantaged sections of society, media reports said.

This failure, the court remarked, had “facilitated and promoted private hospitals,” reported NDTV.

The observation came during a hearing by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that private hospitals were compelling patients and their families to purchase medicines, implants, and other medical supplies from in-house pharmacies at exorbitant mark-ups, according to the report.

The petition sought directives to prevent private hospitals from forcing patients to buy exclusively from their own pharmacies.

It also alleged that both the central and state governments had failed to implement regulatory measures, leading to patient exploitation.

“We agree with you… but how to regulate this?” Justice Surya Kant asked during the proceedings, according to the report.

The court underscored that it is the responsibility of state governments to ensure adequate medical care.

It noted that some states had failed in this duty, thereby enabling private entities to thrive in the healthcare sector.

The states were directed to regulate private hospitals, ensuring they do not coerce patients or their families into purchasing medicines solely from in-house pharmacies, especially when the same products are available at lower prices elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the central government was instructed to frame guidelines to prevent private hospitals and medical institutions from exploiting patients.

However, the court also acknowledged that issuing binding directives might not be advisable but emphasised the need to sensitise state governments on the matter.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had issued notices to state governments regarding the issue. Several states, including Odisha, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan, submitted counter-affidavits.

In their responses, state authorities argued that they adhered to price control orders issued by the central government, which regulate the cost of essential medicines to ensure affordability.

Additionally, some states questioned the locus standi of the petitioners, pointing out that fair-price shops had been established in government hospitals to ensure access to medicines at reasonable rates.

According to the report, the court noted, “We may hasten to add that most states have highlighted state-run schemes aimed at ensuring drugs, medical consumables, and medical services remain affordable.”

The central government also filed a response, asserting that there was no mandate requiring patients to buy medicines exclusively from hospital pharmacies.