The Supreme Court of India expressed deep concerns regarding private hospitals' failure to fulfill their commitments to reserve beds for economically weaker sections. The issue came to light during proceedings related to a petition challenging government regulations aimed at standardizing rates for ophthalmological procedures across the country.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale highlighted the discrepancy between promises made by private hospitals while acquiring subsidized land and their subsequent actions. Justice Dhulia lamented, "All these private hospitals, they say, when getting subsidized land, that they will reserve at least 25 per cent beds for Economically Weaker Sections but it never happens. We have seen it many times."

The petition, filed by the All-India Ophthalmological Society, argued against uniform rates for specialized procedures across different regions, citing the disparity in healthcare costs between metropolitan cities and remote villages. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate B Vijayalakshmi Menon represented the society in court.

During the hearing, the bench issued limited notice to the Attorney General and scheduled further consideration for April 17, acknowledging the significant impact of the issue. Justice Dhulia also raised concerns about the potential repercussions on healthcare affordability, especially in regions like the northeast where rates are comparatively lower.

This case brings to the forefront a longstanding challenge in India's healthcare sector, where private institutions often face scrutiny for not meeting their social obligations despite benefiting from public subsidies. The Supreme Court's intervention underscores the need for greater accountability and transparency in the healthcare industry, particularly concerning access and affordability for marginalized communities.

Case: All India Ophthalmological Society and anr vs. Union of India.