Luco Njagi & 21 others v Ministry of Health & 2 others [2015] eKLR suggested that its decision as captured in various Legal Notices relating to amounts or rebates payable and the accredited facilities are unreasonable. It asks the court not to interfere with decisions on benefits and priorities taken in good faith by statutory agencies and medical authorities whose responsibility it is to deal with such matters. 56. It submits, further, that it would be undesirable for the court to make an order on how scarce medical resources should be applied, or that the resources be used for a particular patient or patients, as doing so may have the effect of denying those resources to other patients. It terms the prayers by the petitioners as discriminatory, irrational, perhaps even selfish for a group of beneficiaries to use the court to lay claim to an enhanced share of the fund without caring about the needs of other users of the fund. 57. NHIF further argued that if the court were to grant the prayers sought by the petitioners, everyone else similarly situated would have to be given similar and equal treatment, which was likely to result in a floodgate of litigation as other beneficiaries will, where certain procedures are not readily available at accredited facilities, seek to attend expensive private facilities, which would lead to a collapse of the carefully tailored rebate programme in place. It therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed. The Case for the Interested Party 58. By an order made on 14th May 2013, the court directed that the private institutions which had been mentioned in the petition and the affidavit in support be served and enjoined as interested parties. Of these institutions, only the Karen Hospital filed any pleadings in the matter, by way of an affidavit sworn by Ms. Esther Thambu, the head of Nursing Services at the Karen Hospital, on 21st June 2013. No submissions were, however, filed in respect of Karen Hospital nor did it participate any further in the hearing of the matter. 59. In her affidavit, Ms. Thambu states that Karen Hospital Limited is a medical institution duly licensed by the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board to offer high quality medical services to the public, which it has undertaken diligently over the years. She states further that the 3rd respondent has its own legal process and members of the public who wish to seek medical attention in Karen Hospital must obtain clearance and a letter of undertaking from the 3rd respondent. 60. It is therefore her contention that the relationship between Karen Hospital and the 3rd respondent was governed by a contract entered into on 1st April 2012 which has since lapsed, and any member of the public who wishes to access its facilities must make his or her own financial arrangements, either personally or with the 3rd respondent. It was also its contention that the 3rd respondent still owes it a colossal sums of money in unpaid medical bills for NHIF members. It submitted therefore that unless the 3rd respondent settles its indebtedness with the Hospital, it will not be able to accommodate the petitioners at Karen Hospital as the Hospital has to pay its suppliers and financiers or else it closes shop. 61. The Karen Hospital further avers that its current rates for dialysis range between Kshs 8,900 for low flux dialysis and 11,900 for high flux dialysis, and while it agrees that the petitioners have a right to healthcare, that right should be balanced against the availability of resources and the likely prejudice that would befall private medical institutions who may be flooded with litigation or with visits from members of the public seeking medical services at no cost. http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 11/18