SC seeks response of Delhi government on plea for free treatment for EWS patients at ILBS

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Delhi government’s response on a plea seeking directions for the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences (ILBS) to comply with its mandate on free treatment for economically weaker sections.

The top court agreed to examine the plea which also sought an independent inquiry into alleged patient-rights violations and financial irregularities at the ILBS here.
A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar took note of the plea filed by Rahul Raj, son of Delhi University Associate Professor Dr Awadhesh Kumar Sah, who claimed he lost his ailing mother due to “systematic malpractices prevailing at the ILBS, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi”.

The plea, filed through lawyer Vivek Sharma, has been listed for hearing on November 4.

The plea sought directions “against ILBS to comply with the binding judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated July 09, 2018 …, which mandates all hospitals allotted government land at concessional rates to provide a minimum of 10 percent IPD (Inpatient Department) and 25 per cent OPD (Outpatient Department) free medical treatment to economically weaker sections of society.”

The application has been moved in the pending proceedings arising out of the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment. It sought that ILBS be brought within the compliance-monitoring framework being undertaken in the matter. In its July 9, 2018 judgment, the top court had upheld the requirement that hospitals allotted government land at concessional rates provide free treatment to at least 25 per cent of OPD patients and 10 per cent of IPD patients belonging to economically weaker sections.

The fresh plea said that ILBS falls within the scope of the judgment as it was established by the Delhi government, which allotted land and provided substantial financial support from the public exchequer.
It said that the ILBS institute received approximately `800 crore in government funding over the years and yet it was not fulfilling its obligations.

The plea relied on findings attributed to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and said that the CAG’s 2018 report found that ILBS received `302.49 crore as grant-in-aid during 2012-16 and that `60 crore was transferred to a corpus fund.

It said the corpus had grown to `67.97 crore, including interest, by February 2017 and that the CAG had recommended its refund with interest.
The plea also cited the CAG’s 2023 compliance audit, alleging that the audit identified more than `36 crore in unsettled contingency advances, non-serviceable equipment worth about `9.68 crore, and `29.43 crore in pending recoveries.

It further cited the audit as recording that the Finance Committee did not meet during three consecutive years, while 57 old audit paragraphs remained pending, some for more than a decade.
The application also alleged that certain records were not furnished to auditors despite repeated requests.

“The CAG recommended refund of the entire Corpus Fund with interest. The said refund has not been made to this date. On the one hand, Rs. 68 crore of public money lay idling in fixed deposits at ILBS,” it said.
On the other hand, poor patients were being denied free treatment mandated by this court’s judgment, it said.

“Both faces of this paradox are two manifestations of the same Revenue Sharing Scheme that has come to define the functioning of ILBS in brazen violation of its own founding document,” it said.
     The applicant has also raised allegations arising from the treatment of his mother, Chunchun Devi, who died at ILBS.

     According to the application, the family was allegedly denied CGHS cashless treatment despite the applicant’s father being a Central Government employee with a valid CGHS card.
     It further alleged that biological samples were sent to a private entity without informed consent and questioned the escalation of the patient’s treatment from the ward to HDU and ICU.
     The application alleged that ILBS’s Revenue Sharing Scheme has resulted in practices that are inconsistent with the institute’s stated public-service objectives.