Private hospitals flag concerns over KPME (Amendment) Bill, 2025

Private medical establishments in Karnataka have raised strong objections to several provisions of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments (Amendment) Bill, 2025, terming them impractical, ambiguous and potentially counter-productive. The Bill was passed in the recent Winter session of the State Legislature in Belagavi.

In a representation to the State government, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and the Federation of Hospital Associations of Karnataka (FHAK) said the amendments, while ostensibly aimed at improving regulatory efficiency and patient safety, could adversely affect bona fide private hospitals and inadvertently enable quackery and regulatory misuse.

Pavan Kumar Patil, chairman of the Hospital Board of IMA in Karnataka and joint secretary of FHAK, said the concerns stem from “serious gaps between the intent of the law and ground realities of hospital administration”. 

“The amendment Bill, in its present form, risks criminalising procedural lapses, disrupting healthcare delivery and weakening regulation by creating loopholes. We urge the government to hold detailed stakeholder consultations before implementing it. We will soon meet Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao in this regard,” Dr. Patil told The Hindu on Monday. 

Key objections

One of the key objections relates to the removal of representation from private medical establishments in the Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority. While the principal Act of 2007 provided for a representative of private hospitals in the authority, the amendment removes this provision, retaining only one IMA member and a woman member. The associations argued that excluding hospital administrators from the decision-making process would lead to regulatory decisions being taken without practical understanding of issues such as staffing norms, emergency care obligations, infrastructure requirements and compliance timelines.

Another major concern is the replacement of the earlier provision for “deemed approval” with a six-month provisional registration system. Under the original Act, applications not disposed of within three months were automatically deemed approved. The associations said the new provision creates prolonged regulatory uncertainty for hospitals that have already made significant financial investments and complied with requirements.

Ambiguity

The representation also flagged ambiguity in the term “existing establishments”, which the amendment states will be deemed provisionally registered at the commencement of the Act. “As the term is not defined, it could be misused by illegal or unregistered operators, thereby providing a temporary legal shield for quacks,” Dr. Patil said.

Issues surrounding renewal of registration were also highlighted. At present, hospitals that miss renewal deadlines are forced to apply afresh, pay double fees and are issued new KPME registration numbers. This disrupts continuity of empanelment with government health schemes, insurance companies and third-party administrators, affecting both payments and patient services, he said.

The provision granting registration without inspection to establishments with accreditations such as NABH or NQAS was described as conceptually flawed. Accreditation bodies require hospitals to be registered and functional before granting accreditation, making this clause impractical for new hospitals, the doctor explained.

Concerns were also raised about powers granted for seizure of documents during inspections. “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 written requisition and a minimum of 72 hours to furnish records, except in cases of proven tampering,” he said.