The Allahabad High Court has issued a forceful and scathing reprimand of the practices of private hospitals in Uttar Pradesh, likening them to ATM machines used to extort money from patients. In a high‑profile order, the bench presided by Justice Prashant Kumar denied relief to a doctor accused of medical negligence, firmly rejecting his plea to quash criminal proceedings initiated over the death of a foetus after an allegedly delayed C‑section. Rather than exonerating the doctor, the Court used the moment to call attention to systemic misconduct in private healthcare settings.
The controversy centers on Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai, who ran a nursing home where a pregnant woman was admitted for a cesarean section. Although consent for surgery was obtained around 11 AM, the operation was inexplicably delayed until 5:30 PM, by which time the foetus had already died. The court noted that this delay of several hours was particularly egregious given the high‑risk nature of obstetric emergencies. When the doctor filed a petition seeking to nullify the criminal charges against him, citing a lack of due process and improper accusations, the High Court took issue not just with the individual act but with the institution that enabled it.
Justice Prashant Kumar underscored that any medical professional operating with due care should be shielded by the law. However, he drew a clear distinction between conscientious practitioners and those who advertise facilities without basic infrastructure—such as operating theatres, anaesthetists, or emergency staff—intending only to lure patients in and bill them for services beyond what they can safely deliver. This, the Court said, amounted to treating vulnerable patients as financial instruments, compromising patient safety for profit.
Calling it “common practice these days,” the bench described how private nursing homes admit patients, secure consent for surgical or other high-cost procedures, and then scramble to arrange qualified personnel only after the patient is formally admitted. The court referred to this phenomenon as tantamount to using patients as “guinea pigs” or ATMs—inviting them into facilities without adequate preparedness, then calling in staff only when payment has been secured. The inspectors noted that such behavior is neither rare nor isolated, but endemic to certain segments of private healthcare.
In applying these observations to Dr. Rai’s case, the High Court found a substantive link between the delay in surgery and the death of the foetus. The doctor had not provided any plausible explanation for the multi‑hour wait—especially after consent had been given. Even if the delay had been caused by administrative oversight, the absence of an anaesthetist at the scheduled time was reckless, the bench noted. Consequently, the petition to quash the criminal proceedings was dismissed, meaning charges related to medical negligence will move ahead in court.
At its core, the judgment serves as a rebuke to private healthcare providers that prioritize revenue over patient welfare. The Court emphasized that while healthcare is a service, it is also a solemn trust. Practitioners who lack adequate facilities, doctors, or infrastructure—and who nonetheless promise treatment—are endangering lives. Any claims of professional protection dissolve when the facility itself is a facade behind which profit predation occurs.
This decision dovetails with broader criticism by the Allahabad High Court of medical malpractices ranging from government hospitals to private clinics. In other recent rulings, the Court criticized state doctors who refer patients to private institutions likely for financial kickbacks, and flagged widespread medical mafias in Prayagraj preying on helpless patients within government hospitals. All these instances point to a pattern of systemic ethical decay in healthcare.
The ruling also underscores an important legal principle: the protection of conscientious doctors must not shield exploitative practices. Courts and regulators should be vigilant in distinguishing ethical medical professionals from businesses masquerading as clinical facilities. When patients are treated as accounts instead of people, the judicial system must respond decisively.
While the Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings is specific to Dr. Rai, its broader language echoes a serious public policy concern. In practice, this judgment sets a precedent for prosecuting negligent behavior not just as isolated misconduct, but as symptomatic of institutional failure. It lends momentum to regulatory efforts aimed at ensuring real accountability in private medical practice—from properly staffed ICUs to timely interventions.
In conclusion, the Allahabad High Court has refused to shield a doctor whose delay in conducting critical surgery resulted in loss of life, while also using the occasion to expose an ongoing malaise: private hospitals treating patients as ATMs rather than human beings. It has sent a powerful message—medical facilities must uphold infrastructure, transparency, and real care, not just run billing schemes under the veneer of care. Medical professionals who deviate from that standard must not expect legal refuge; instead, they must face full accountability for patient harm under the law.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.