The court cannot interfere with policy decisions regarding the implementation of government schemes and the functioning of government stores. Regulatory mechanisms under various acts exist to address malpractices and overcharging in the medical field.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:--

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following reliefs against the respondent No. 1 Union of India and the respondent No. 2 Medical Council of India:-

“(a) Direct respondent No. 1 to make available medical treatment to the general public at reasonable cost.

(b) Direct respondent No. 1 to make easily available medicines by their generic names by opening Jan Aushodhi Stores on a large scale throughout the territory of India and give systematic, regular publicity regarding the low prices of unbranded medicines with correct and accurate location of the Jan Aushodhi Stores and ensure regularly that the stores are always functional.

© Set up high powered enquiry committee consisting of persons of high integrity and knowledge to enquire into malpractices of hospitals for paying commissions to doctors for referring patients and for carrying out unnecessary procedures, to conduct detailed investigation into overcharging by hospitals and companies and overcharging of various medical devices and thereby looting patients and submit detailed report to this hon’ble court within a reasonable time.

(d) To setup regulatory authority to ensure that medical device companies do not overcharge patients, to bring medical devices like cardiac drug eluting stents, cochlear implant, bone cement orthopaedic implants, disposable syringes, ocular lens heart valves and other costly medical equipments under price control by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority.

(e) Direct respondent No. 1 to take immediate stringent action including cancellation of lease of hospital land etc., against hospitals for giving commissions to doctors for referring patients and for carrying out unnecessary procedures.

(f) Direct respondent No. 2 stringent action against the doctors under Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 who do not prescribe medicines including life saving drugs by their generic names.

(g) Direct respondent No. 2 to initiate immediate penal action against doctors who indulge in unethical and medical malpractices under India Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002.

(h) To setup permanent monitoring committee consisting persons of high integrity, knowledge to monitor regularly opening and functioning of Jan Aushodhi Stores throughout the territory of India and to monitor availability of good quality Generic Medicines in sufficient quantity and to ensure that all essential and life saving drugs are notified in the list of Price Control managed by National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority.

(i) Any other order or relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. The petition came up before us on 26th November, 2014 when after hearing the counsel for the petitioner at length we reserved judgment.

3. Qua the first of the aforesaid reliefs, of issuing a direction to the Union of India to make available medical treatment to the general public at reasonable cost, we may notice that the Central Government as well as the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi have already set up public hospitals for providing medical treatment at no cost or at reasonable cost. We are of the view that beyond the same, it is not in the domain of this Court to issue any such direction. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 held that no State or country can have unlimited resources and provision of facilities cannot be unlimited and that the Courts would not interfere with any opinion formed by the Government. A Single Judge of this Court in J.K. Sawhney v. Punjab National Bank 169 (2010) DLT 743 held the retired employees of the bank to be not entitled to medical reimbursement when the bipartite settlement between the bank and its employees did not provide therefor. It was further held that those not covered by the CGHS could no