NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the Centre and Delhi government to send a joint team of experts to inspect the records of Apollo Hospital for the last five years to find out whether it had fulfilled its commitment to provide free treatment to 30% indoor and 40% outdoor patients as per the 1994 lease agreement, and stressed that it “would not hesitate to hand it over to All India Institute of Medical Sciences ” if it was found to be in violation of the agreement under which 15 acres of prime land was given to it at the token rent of Re 1 per month.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh referred to the lease agreement, under which land was allotted to Indraprastha Medical Corporation, with Delhi govt having a 26% shareholding, to set up Apollo Hospital on Mathura Road and said, “We are not sure whether the hospital is providing 200 free beds to poor patients in its indoor facility.”
Additional solicitor general S D Anand informed the bench that the 30-year lease of the land allotted to Apollo Hospital had expired, leading the bench to order the Centre and the Delhi govt to set up an expert team to inspect the records of the hospital for the last five years to find out whether it had honoured the lease agreement conditions.
The bench asked the Centre and Delhi government to file affidavits informing the court whether the lease period was extended, and if so, the terms and conditions thereof.
It also wanted to know what use the land and building were put to if the lease had not been renewed.
The Justice Kant-led bench asked the expert team to find out from hospital records the number of poor patients who were given free treatment in outdoor and indoor facilities in the last five years. It directed the hospital management to cooperate with the examination of records by experts.
The court also asked the hospital to file an affidavit giving details of free treatment to poor patients and posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks while issuing a warning that “if the hospital is not being run properly and as per the lease agreement, we will not hesitate to give its running to AIIMS”.
Referring to the Sept 22, 2009, judgment of Delhi high court, SC said it was apparent that the hospital management had not adhered to the free treatment obligations stipulated in the lease agreement. It said the HC had issued a series of directions to ensure free treatment to specified percentage of poor patients despite the hospital management taking a stand that it was a commercial venture.
Delhi HC had said in its judgment, “The land was given to the hospital at a token rent of Re 1 per month. In addition to the land, GNCTD contributed substantially to the equity capital as well as to the construction of the hospital. Total investment of the GNCTD is more than Rs 38 crore. It is not permissible for the hospital to turn around and avoid the responsibility undertaken by it under the agreement.”
