Court Ruling Affirms Right to Medical Treatment
A significant ruling by the First Instance Court in Sefrou has reinforced the constitutional right to healthcare by rejecting a case brought by the Hassan II Hospital in Fez against a patient, which sought to compel him to pay for medical expenses incurred during the processing delay of his RAMED card. The court emphasized that the administration’s delay in issuing the medical assistance card should not deprive the citizen of their fundamental right to health treatment, nor should it justify demanding that they bear the costs of medical services received while awaiting administrative completion.
This decision, stemming from a minor claims court case, is legally pivotal as it reaffirms that the right to health is a fundamental right protected under Article 31 of the Moroccan Constitution. The court stated that the administrative procedures associated with obtaining a RAMED card should not become a barrier preventing citizens from accessing necessary medical treatments.
The details of the case reveal that the Hassan II Hospital had filed a lawsuit demanding that the patient pay a sum of 2,598 dirhams, representing the cost of medical services provided during his hospitalization. The hospital argued that the patient had received treatment without possessing the RAMED card, which entitles individuals to free healthcare services, supporting their claim with a bill and payment receipt.
In his defense, the patient argued that his medical condition required urgent hospitalization and that he had submitted a request for RAMED assistance prior to his treatment. He pointed out that the administrative process for obtaining the card was delayed, a situation for which he should not be held accountable. The patient explained to the court that he suffers from a chronic illness and had filed for RAMED assistance with the relevant authorities, only receiving the card about a month after his treatment began.
After reviewing the case documents, the court confirmed that the patient indeed had obtained a RAMED card, which was issued shortly after his treatment. It was noted that the medical procedure took place in March 2018, with only a month separating the treatment and the receipt of the RAMED card. The court also acknowledged the administrative guidelines indicating that the RAMED card application process could take up to three months, asserting that the patient should not bear the consequences of administrative delays.
The ruling confirmed that Article 31 of the Constitution obliges the state, public institutions, and local authorities to mobilize available resources to facilitate citizens' access to healthcare services. Furthermore, it stressed that this right must not be restricted due to administrative obstacles beyond the beneficiary's control. The court also highlighted that the RAMED system was established primarily to ensure that underserved populations can access health services in public institutions, emphasizing that the system's philosophy is to enable eligible individuals to receive treatment rather than deny them due to slow administrative processes.
In a critical assertion, the court noted that the patient had provided evidence of submitting his request for RAMED assistance before undergoing treatment, and the subsequent issuance of his card shortly thereafter was sufficient to prove his eligibility for free healthcare. The court further indicated that Article 11 of Decree No. 2.08.177, issued on September 29, 2008, regarding the application of the provisions of the third book of Law No. 65.00 on basic health coverage, does not preclude emergency treatment during the interval between requesting the RAMED card and its issuance by the local permanent committee.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the hospital's demand for the patient to pay for his medical treatment lacked a solid legal basis, given that the patient had initiated the process for RAMED assistance prior to receiving treatment and was not responsible for the administrative delays in issuing the card. Consequently, the court accepted the request in form but rejected it on the merits, ruling that the hospital should bear the costs, thereby reaffirming that the right to health remains a fundamental right that must be safeguarded, and that administrative procedures should never become a reason to deny citizens their right to medical care or impose costs for services they were entitled to receive under the RAMED system.
As reported by madar21.com.
