| dc.description.abstract | The healthcare system in India is largely privatized, and there have been innumerable incidents
of unethical practices within it. Despite the unprecedented growth in the private sector, it is
mostly unregulated. The quality of healthcare services is unacceptable in quite a few of these
hospitals, to the extent that it becomes difficult to prevent medical negligence. Many of these
private institutions have been operating without any registration, and there has hardly ever been
an inspection for the same. The Medical Councils of various states have completely failed to act
against doctors, and were poorly regulated. Also, private hospitals have mostly refused the norms
laid by the Centre and State-run health schemes, as has been evidenced from the various cases
where rules have been flouted while charging BPL patients.
With growing reports of such practices, in 1995, the Supreme Court made a landmark
judgment saying that the Consumer Protection Act was applicable to the medical profession,
which gave rise to the need for regulating the clinical establishments and the quality of services
provided by them.
Another major concern is the lack of complete information regarding the available
resources of healthcare with the policy makers, as there is no system of information collection
from private health establishments. Thus, the need for having an Act for regulating Clinical
Establishments got reinforced to ensure appropriate policy formulation around healthcare.
The Clinical Establishments Act has many benefits which address the concerns
mentioned above, however, it is receiving severe criticism from multiple stakeholders. This
paper tries to highlight the benefits and limitations of the Act, and the game theory behind the
claims. | en_US |
