The Supreme Court issued a notice in response to a writ petition seeking regulation of advertisements by corporate hospitals. The petitioner pointed out that, while individual medical practitioners are barred from advertising, corporate hospitals face no such restriction.
A bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia issued the notice to the National Medical Commission (NMC), the Union of India, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board. The petition, filed by Narayan Aniruddha Malpani, urged the development of comprehensive guidelines to ensure ethical advertising practices by corporate hospitals and to prevent them from circumventing existing regulations.
Issue of Unregulated Corporate Hospital Advertising
The petition highlighted that unregulated advertising by corporate hospitals and venture capital-funded healthcare start-ups has created inequality among medical professionals and undermined patients’ ability to make informed decisions. This, the petitioner argued, violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution by allowing corporate hospitals to mislead patients.
The petition also referenced the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, issued under the NMC Act, 2019, which prohibit both direct and indirect solicitation of patients by doctors. However, corporate hospitals, which fall under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010, are outside the jurisdiction of the NMC Act, creating an inconsistency in regulation.
Discrepancy in Regulation Between Doctors and Hospitals
The petition highlighted that while doctors are subject to the NMC’s ethical guidelines, corporate hospitals are not. This allows hospitals to use advertising to gain an unfair advantage, violating the principles of the Ethics Regulations of 2002. The petitioner argued that this creates an arbitrary distinction within the medical profession, infringing on fundamental rights.
The petition further pointed out that this loophole in the law undermines the objectives of the NMC Act, which is intended to ensure accessible healthcare for all. Instead, corporate hospital advertising increases healthcare costs and makes services less affordable for the majority of Indian citizens.
Corporate Hospitals Cannot Exploit Freedom of Speech
The petition asserted that corporate hospitals cannot invoke freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(A) to justify unethical advertising. While commercial speech is protected under the Constitution, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The petition cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tata Press Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam, where it was held that misleading and deceptive advertising can be regulated.
Need for Comprehensive Guidelines
The petitioner urged the Court to establish clear guidelines to hold corporate hospitals accountable under the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, for any violation of the Ethics Regulations. Additionally, the petitioner called for the harmonization of the NMC Act, 2019, with the Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, to ensure that corporate hospitals do not benefit from regulatory loopholes.
The case is titled Narayan Aniruddha Malpani v. National Medical Commission & Ors, Diary No. 34769-2023.