Pune: Health rights groups alleged that the Maharashtra government’s newly tabled draft Clinical Establishments Bill, 2026, aimed at regulating private hospitals, diluted key patient protections and ignored lessons from the pandemic.Activists called the draft “deficient”. They urged citizens to submit objections before August 20 on the legislature’s portal. Feedback and objections can be given at https://mls.org.in/assembly-bill-51.Activists alleged that the draft bill, which seeks to replace the Maharashtra Nursing Homes Registration Rules, 2021, stripped patients of several hard-won entitlements. Dr Abhay Shukla, who led the drafting of the national patients’ rights charter, said, “The govt needs to make major modifications in the bill as it is regressive in nature and accommodate all the provisions under the national patients rights charter. Of the 20 specific rights, the draft bill mentions only seven. The govt must engage in a conversation with the civil rights agencies, women’s rights agencies and health activists, and take their say into account.”Dr Shukla said, “The bill omits prohibition on withholding patients or bodies over unpaid bills and a woman’s right to a female attendant. It drops explicit protections for people living with HIV and no longer requires hospitals to display doctors’ names, qualifications and registration numbers or issue proper discharge summaries. It also ignores the National Patients’ Rights Charter, including the freedom to buy medicines and diagnostic services from providers of choice.”Activists said the bill was expected to bring in a standardised rate structure. But, they alleged, it failed to do so.Dr Anand Phadke of Jan Aarogya Abhiyan said, ”The bill has not mentioned about standardised treatment protocol or unnecessary treatment or diagnostic tests and even wrong treatments given to patients. Also, there are no district-level grievance redressal officials for patients or doctors mentioned in the bill.”Advocate Sonam Chandwani, managing partner, KS Legal & Associates, said, “A new law should not simply create a new regulatory machinery for hospitals. It should tell us very clearly what happens to the patient when the hospital refuses something, when there is a billing dispute, when a patient wants their records, when a family loses a relative or when a patient believes that their dignity or privacy has been compromised.”Chandwani said, “A provision preventing a hospital from holding a patient or a body because of unpaid dues is not just a hospital management issue. It is a safeguard against a very unequal bargaining situation. The law has to recognise that reality.”Under the 2021 rules, hospitals had to maintain a grievance cell with a toll-free number and resolve complaints within 24 hours. The 2026 draft offered no such forum for patients, activists said. The proposed state council, they said, was monopolised by government health officials with zero representation of patient groups, nurses or civil society.Activists demanded inclusion of all 20 patient rights from the 2021 rules and the national charter in the new law. They sought a time-bound, accessible grievance system at district- and state-level, besides standardised hospital charges. They also demanded an independent full-time regulator, a multi-stakeholder state council and district grievance committees chaired by a retired judge or a legal expert.
