Synopsis: The petition alleges that COVID-19 patients would be forced to pay “exorbitant, Non-COVID rates” as a result of the rest of the government order.
The Aam Admi Party government has moved the Supreme Court to set aside the order of the Delhi High Court to stay its move to reserve 80% of the total of ICU beds for COVID-19 patients in private hospitals.
The appeal filed by Advocate Chirag M Shroff challenges Justice Navin Chawla’s order of 22th September and another order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which listed the hearing of the case on 27th November, without vacating the stay issued by the Single Judge.
The Delhi government claimed in its appeal that the High Court failed to note that it ordered only 33 private nursing homes and hospitals to reserve 80% of their COVID-19 patients’ ICU beds.
In addition, the government allowed private hospitals to temporarily increase their bed capacity by 30%, subject to the increased beds for COVID-19 patients being dedicated, thereby addressing the issue of additional bed requirements for COVID-19 patients.
The plea goes on to state that none of the 33 hospitals at issue objected to the reservation of hospital beds by government order.
It is also claimed that the argument made by the Association of Healthcare Providers that non-COVID patients would be adversely affected was simply to mask the commercial interests of private hospitals who were ordered to charge only a capped fee for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.
Another point raised is that since the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court failed to take judicial note of the COVID-19 pandemic and the steadily rising COVID-19 infection graph and the fact that Delhi has always been the preferred location for patients even from neighbouring states to seek medical treatment and has therefore, erred in passing the Impugned Order.
In addition, as a result of the stay on the government order, the petition alleges that patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to hospitals under the government order would be required to pay “exorbitant, non-COVID rates” for the remainder of their treatment at the ICU where they have already been admitted.
The plea also points out that the courts are not capable of intervening with the State’s policy decisions, in particular when the decision is made in the public interest.
The appellants submit that the decision-making process must be complex and appropriate during a pandemic situation.
The plea alleges that the decision to issue the GNCTD Order was made in the light of an increasing COVID-19 infection graph and that it would be dynamically checked.
On those grounds, the Delhi Government, among others, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Division Bench of 9th October and, in the meantime, to stay the order of the Single Judge of 22nd September.
The High Court noted in its order of 22nd September that the consequence of the government order was that 80% of beds in 33 private hospitals should be kept reserved for COVID-19 patients, leading to a situation where, despite availability, a non-COVID patient could be denied admission to an ICU.