Patna High Court on Tuesday directed the state government to not take any coercive action against any medical establishment in the state - government or private - under the Clinical Establishment Act till further court orders.

A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi passed the order. The case would next be heard on July 4. Justice Tripathi passed the order on a PIL filed by Bihar Health Services Association (BHSA), opposing the Act in Bihar.

In its petition the association has alleged that although health is a state subject, the Bihar government adopted the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 passed by the Union government without making any changes to suit the state's needs. Though Bihar adopted the Act in 2011, the rules were framed in 2013.

The central government enacted the said Act to provide for registration and regulation of all clinical establishments in the country and prescribe minimum standards of facilities and services provided by them.

According to the Act's provisions, a clinical establishment is supposed to maintain records of out-patient, in-patient, operation theatre, labour room, medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), case-sheets, laboratory register, discharge summary, complaint register, number of beds, system-wise and speciality-wise in the establishment and rates of different services.

Though the Act prescribes mandatory registration for all government and private hospitals, only 3,000 of 30,000 hospitals in the state have registered under the said Act so far.

The bench in its order on Tuesday said: "Without framing any prescribed standard, no action can be taken against medical establishments that have till now not registered themselves under the Act."

The prescribed standard refers to number of staff in a particular clinic, area and infrastructure.

Taking to The Telegraph, Indian Medical Association (IMA) member and former BHSA general secretary Ajay Kumar said: "We welcome the high court's decision. We are opposing the Act on several grounds. Every other state has adopted the Act after making changes according to their needs, but this has not been the case in Bihar." He said that by adopting the Act without changes, the state had made a standardised categorisation of clinical establishments in villages and cities. He also said it was difficult for small clinics to fulfil conditions of the Act.

Another clause being opposed by the medical fraternity is the stringent punishment prescribed under the Act. While the first-time fine for not adhering to rules is Rs 50,000, it is Rs 2 lakh for second offence and Rs 5 lakh for third offence. Doctors are also opposing the provision of providing free treatment to emergency patients till they stabilise.

"Though we are ready to provide free aid, giving free treatment to patients till they stabilise is not feasible. Who will bear the cost of treatment," Ajay asked.