Private hospitals have termed the provisions of the Private Medical Facilities (Amendment) Act, 2025 as impractical, ambiguous and potentially counterproductive. | Photo Credit: PHOTOS FOR REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES
Private medical facilities in Karnataka have raised strong objections to several provisions of the Private Medical Facilities (Amendment) Act, 2025, terming them impractical, ambiguous and potentially counterproductive. The bill was passed in the recent winter session of the state legislature in Belagavi.
The Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Federation of Hospital Associations of Karnataka (FHAK), on behalf of the state government, said the changes, which are ostensibly aimed at improving regulatory efficiency and patient safety, could adversely affect bona fide private hospitals and inadvertently enable quackery and misuse of regulations.
Pavan Kumar Patil, chairman of the IMA Hospital Council in Karnataka and joint secretary of the FHAK, said the apprehension stemmed from “serious discrepancies between the intent of the law and the ground reality of hospital management”.
“The amendment bill in its current form risks criminalizing procedural flaws, disrupting healthcare delivery and weakening regulation by creating loopholes. We urge the government to carry out detailed consultations with stakeholders before implementing it. We will soon meet Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao in this regard,” said Dr. Patil told The Hindu on Monday.
Key objections
One of the key objections concerns the removal of the representation of private health facilities in the Office for Registration and Complaints Handling. While the main law of 2007 provided for representatives of private hospitals in the office, the amendment removes this provision, leaving only one member of the IMA and a woman. The associations argued that excluding hospital administrators from the decision-making process would result in regulatory decisions being made without a practical understanding of issues such as staffing standards, emergency care obligations, infrastructure requirements and compliance schedules.
Another major issue is the replacement of the former “deemed approval” provision with a six-month provisional registration system. Under the original law, applications pending within three months were automatically considered approved. The associations said the new provision creates prolonged regulatory uncertainty for hospitals that have already made significant financial investments and complied with the requirements.
Ambiguity
The representation also drew attention to the ambiguity of the term “existing establishment”, which the amendment states will be considered provisionally registered upon the entry into force of the law. “Because the term is not defined, it could be misused by illegal or unregistered operators, thereby providing a temporary legal shield for quacks,” said Dr. He suffered.
Issues related to re-registration were also highlighted. Currently, hospitals that miss renewal deadlines are forced to re-apply, pay double fees and are issued new KPME registration numbers. This disrupts the continuity of connections with government health systems, insurance companies and third-party administrators, affecting both payments and patient services, he said.
The provision granting registration without inspection by an accredited body such as NABH or NQAS was considered conceptually flawed. Accreditation bodies require hospitals to be registered and operational before accreditation is granted, making this provision impractical for new hospitals, the doctor explained.
Concerns were also raised about the powers granted to seize documents during checks. “Hospital records are often completed after procedures or emergencies, and immediate seizure of incomplete records could unfairly incriminate doctors, especially in emergency situations. There should be a safeguard clause mandating a written request and a minimum of 72 hours to provide records, except in cases of proven tampering,” he said.
Published – 22 Dec 2025 19:54 IST
