The Supreme Court of India sharply criticized the commercialization of private healthcare, observing that corporate hospitals operate as profit-driven industries rather than public service providers. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta highlighted exorbitant drug markups—citing instances where cancer drugs with a Price to Retailer (PTR) of ₹2,700 were sold at a Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹27,000—and noted that common citizens and taxpayers bear the brunt of these inflated costs, especially under government reimbursement schemes.
Case Title: Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Hearing: September 29, 2026
Next Date of Hearing: October 12, 2026
Subject Area: Healthcare Commercialization | Pharmaceutical Price Control | Essential Commodities Act | Consumer Protection
Core Observations & Legal Nuances
1. “Absolute Rampage and Carnage” in Drug Pricing
The Bench expressed outrage over the ten-fold difference between the PTR and MRP of critical medicines like cancer drugs, previously describing un-capped markups as “absolute rampage and carnage” and “broad daylight dacoity.”
2. Monopoly of In-House Pharmacies
The Court highlighted the practice of corporate hospitals forcing admitted patients to purchase medicines exclusively from their in-house chemists at full MRP. Patients attempting to bring genuine medicines from outside are often denied assurance of treatment by the hospital.
3. Loss to the Public Exchequer and Taxpayers
When patients receive treatment under government-sponsored welfare schemes, corporate hospitals claim full reimbursements from the government based on these artificially inflated MRPs. Consequently, public funds and taxpayers ultimately subsidize corporate hospital profit margins.
“Corporate hospitals are industries. It is not a service at all. Why should common man suffer all this?”
— Supreme Court of India
4. The Consumer Trust Dilemma
The Bench noted that massive price spreads distort consumer trust. If an honest chemist offers a ₹27,000 MRP drug at its fair price of ₹3,000, vulnerable patients hesitate to buy it out of fear that the discounted medicine might be fake or spurious.
Questions Posed to the Central Government
- Uniform Price Caps: The Court questioned why the Union Government maintains a rigid distinction between scheduled essential drugs and non-scheduled medicines, asking why a uniform 16% margin cap on MRP cannot be enforced across all pharmaceutical products under the Essential Commodities Act.
- Government Response: Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta acknowledged the issue, stating that the government needs to find a balanced resolution and requested time to consult with relevant administrative departments.
Reliefs Sought in the Petition
The public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kishan Chand Jain seeks:
- Mandatory prescription of generic drugs over branded equivalents.
- Strict initial price controls and caps on non-scheduled medicines.
- Rationalization and capping of Maximum Retail Prices (MRPs) on medical devices.
Status & Next Steps
- The Supreme Court granted additional time to the Solicitor General to hold inter-departmental consultations.
- The matter is listed for further hearing on October 12, 2026.