Summary of this article
The Allahabad High Court upheld the de-empanelment of a private hospital for violating Ayushman Bharat scheme rules.
The hospital charged Rs 9,000 for blood units that are to be provided for free under the AB-PMJAY.
The Court noted that hospital empanelment is a privilege granted by the State, not an enforceable right.
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the de-empanelment decision of a hospital in a recent case, in which the private hospital was found to have charged Rs 9,000 for providing blood units to an infant battling cancer. A Division Bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by the hospital seeking de-empanelment from the State Health Agency for Comprehensive and Integrated Services (SACHIS) to provide healthcare under the Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY).
The high court affirmed the regulatory action taken by the state authorities. It emphasised that empanelled hospitals must follow the rules regarding charges and other operational protocols when providing welfare benefits to patients.
The case was filed by Surgimed Hospital, which was served a show cause notice in June 2026. In August 2026, the State Empanelment Committee issued an order to de-empanel the hospital from providing services under the government scheme.
The action was taken after it was found that the hospital had charged Rs 9,000 for supplying two units of blood to a two-month-old child suffering from blood cancer, while blood provision is free under the scheme. Besides this, the doctor did not record the transfusion units in the patient’s Bed Head Ticket, a mandatory requirement for intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
While the counsel of the petitioner challenged the de-empanelment order, the court found that the doctor who represented the hospital before the State Empanelment Committee had admitted the procedural and operational lapse.
Court’s Observation And Judgment
The court observed that the impugned order was “not eloquent enough”, the facts clearly show the serious shortcoming. The Division Bench clarified that cancelling empanelment of the hospital under the scheme did not infringe upon the petitioner’s fundamental right to practice medicine or treat private patients.
The court noted that de-empanelment in this case was akin to a patient choosing to stop availing of a consultant’s service due to loss of confidence. The Bench affirmed that empanelment is a privilege for the hospitals conferred by the State, so it is not an enforceable legal right for the hospitals.
Considering the prima facie material that showed that the hospital had failed to follow the necessary protocols for treatment under the scheme, the high court concluded that there is no ground for judicial interference, and accordingly, dismissed the petition.
