The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the removal of a private Hospital from the panel of hospitals empanelled under the Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), after it allegedly charged ₹9,000 for two units of blood provided to a 2-month-old child suffering from blood cancer, instead of providing them free of cost under the government health scheme.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla dismissed the hospital's writ petition challenging the State Empanelment Committee's order dated August 19, 2026, which struck off its empanelment under the State Health Agency for Comprehensive and Integrated Services (SACHIS).

Briefly, the hospital received a show-cause notice on June 18, 2026, and the impugned order (dated August 19) stated that the transfusion units were not recorded in the Bed Head Ticket by the doctor attending to the child.

As per the order, the procedure was mandatory for a patient admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (I.C.U.). Hence, the said adverse order was passed.

Examining the said order passed against the Hospital, the Court said that though the impugned order was "not eloquent enough", it did not detract from the substance of the facts emerging from the record.

The Court also noted that the doctor who appeared before the State Empanelment Committee on behalf of the hospital had admitted to the lapses.

Considering the prima facie facts of the case, the Court took exception to the alleged conduct of the doctors and the hospital management. The bench observed thus:

"...prima facie material has surfaced against the petitioner-Hospital showing serious shortcomings in the implementation of the scheme on their part and observing necessary protocols while offering treatment under the scheme", the Bench observed.

The High Court also noted that the empanelment under SACHIS or the Ayushman Bharat scheme did not affect the hospital's right to practice its profession.

It clarified that removal from the scheme's panel did not prevent the hospital or its doctors from carrying on their profession or treating patients who approached them for their services.

Drawing an analogy, the Bench observed that the position was akin to a patient choosing to opt out of the services of a particular consultant or doctor because of a loss of confidence.

"Empanelment under the aforesaid scheme is not a justiciable right, but a privilege conferred on particular hospitals, which, of course the State must do in a non-discriminatory manner", the Court said.

The Bench added that although the State must confer empanelment in a non-discriminatory manner, the material on record disclosed prima facie serious shortcomings by the hospital in implementing the scheme and observing the necessary protocols while providing treatment under it.

In view of this, finding no ground to interfere with the State Empanelment Committee's decision, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the hospital's writ petition.