The Maharashtra government has mandated that private hospitals form two-tier medical boards to review passive euthanasia and living will cases. This directive aligns private healthcare facilities with national Supreme Court standards, ensuring a formal approval process before withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. Investors may monitor how this regulatory compliance impacts hospital operations and medical liability frameworks.
The Maharashtra government has issued a formal directive requiring private hospitals to establish primary and secondary medical boards for reviewing cases involving passive euthanasia and living wills. This regulatory move, effective immediately, ensures that private healthcare providers follow the same rigorous approval standards for withdrawing life-sustaining treatments as those mandated for public hospitals in late 2024. The policy stems from recent Supreme Court guidance, which emphasizes the need for objective clinical review when honoring a patient’s advance medical directive.
Structure of Medical Review Boards
Under the new guidelines, private hospitals must now facilitate a two-stage approval process. The primary medical board will be led by the hospital's administrator or medical director, and must include the patient's treating doctor, a critical care specialist, and a senior physician or surgeon. This board is tasked with the initial assessment of the medical request.
For final approval, a secondary medical board is required. In districts outside of Mumbai, this board will operate under the district civil surgeon, ensuring independent oversight. Within Mumbai and its suburban districts, the secondary board will be coordinated through the state-run JJ Hospital. These boards must include subject experts with at least five years of clinical experience and external specialists to provide an unbiased evaluation of the patient's condition.
Regulatory Context and Investor Impact
This move brings the private healthcare sector into full alignment with the legal framework established by the Supreme Court in the Common Cause judgment and the subsequent Harish Rana case. By standardizing these procedures across the private sector, the state government aims to provide legal clarity for hospitals and doctors handling sensitive end-of-life care decisions.
For investors in the healthcare sector, particularly those holding shares in hospital chains and private medical groups, this directive is a significant regulatory development. Hospitals will now need to dedicate administrative resources to maintain these expert panels and ensure strict compliance with the documentation required for medical board reviews. While this process is essential for legal protection and ethical compliance, it introduces a layer of operational complexity in clinical governance. The primary monitorable for investors moving forward will be how individual hospital groups integrate these boards into their existing clinical workflow and how this impacts their internal compliance costs and medical legal risk profiles.