“CASHLESS” TREATMENT: INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, SYSTEM IS USELESS

“CASHLESS” TREATMENT: INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, SYSTEM IS USELESS

25-JUNE-ENG 18

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA--------------------------When someone meets with an accident on the road in the country, the first question asked is not how deep the injury is – first it is asked “Do you have an identity card?”, “Do you have insurance?”, “Is the hospital registered?” and then finally – “Will you be able to save him or not?”. As if papers are more important than the life of the victim.

In such a country, when the government says that “Now, anyone injured in a road accident will get free treatment up to ₹1.5 lakh for the first seven days”, it seems as if the system has put on a human face. But when we see the reality of this scheme on the ground, that face looks blurred – sometimes lost in files, sometimes stuck in the portal, and sometimes dying due to the indifference of the hospital.

This cashless treatment scheme was started under section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The objective was that no poor or rich person should have to dig into his pocket for treatment. At first glance, it seems that the government has understood the pain of the common man. But then the same old question arises — will the system ever be able to bridge the gap between intention and policy?

So far, many states have not even given orders to implement this scheme. Even in developed areas like Noida and Ghaziabad adjacent to the capital Delhi, hospitals did not know that the scheme had been started till June 2025. Isn't it ridiculous that the scheme has been started but hospitals and doctors are searching for it like a lost traffic signal? And in the hospitals that are associated with the scheme, the limit of treatment is ₹ 1.5 lakh. Now just think — ICU, surgery, medicines, tests of a patient admitted in a serious road accident — can all this be limited to ₹ 1.5 lakh? Private hospitals have clearly said — "Why should we work at a loss?" And the government answers — "Deshseva!" But is Deshseva the responsibility of doctors alone? Not of policy makers?

Portal – yes, the same portal made on the computer – seeing which even the clerk of the hospital gets confused. Sometimes the documents are not uploaded, sometimes the form remains incomplete, and sometimes the entire claim goes into “error”. Forget about the patient, even the hospital does not know whom to contact, where to get the correction done.

Everyone has different rules, different understanding, and the same confusion. No one knows whose work is what. It seems as if the scheme is a play in which everyone is a character, but no one has been given the script.

And what is more, many times the accident is so serious that the nearby hospitals are not registered in the scheme. In such a situation, they are afraid of even doing “stabilization” – they are afraid that their money might get stuck! Result – the injured patient is carried from here to there in the ambulance, and his “golden hour” i.e. the most precious time to save life – is spent on the way.

The public does not know that there is such a scheme. On seeing an injured woman lying on the road, people take out their cameras, but are unable to tell the name of the scheme for her treatment. Even the staff working in the hospital does not know how to implement the scheme. Will the scheme benefit when the beneficiary does not even know that he is a beneficiary?

The humor deepens when the government gives a reward of up to ₹25,000 under the 'Rahveer Yojana' for helping an injured person - but people are limited to radio or government posters about the scheme. Where people are seen dancing and singing on social media, this scheme is invisible.

A lot needs to be done to make the scheme successful on the ground. First of all - state governments should give up laziness and give clear guidelines. Registration of hospitals should be made mandatory within a clear time frame. The example of Indore is good where hospitals were included in the scheme within three days in June 2025.

Secondly, the financial limit of the scheme should be decided according to the actual medical costs. If the government wants to save people's lives, then why is it pushing hospitals into losses?

Third, the portal must not become a mockery of “Digital India”. It must be made simple, clear and technically efficient. The claim process must be transparent – ​​so that hospitals get paid on time, and patients get relief.

Along with this, non-registered hospitals should also be given the right to stabilisation and a payment guarantee. This will increase the chance of survival.

The public must know that every life lying on the road is linked to a scheme. Information about this scheme must be given everywhere – from posters to mobile messages, from schools to panchayats. Because only when the public knows, hospitals will be held accountable.

This cashless treatment scheme, if implemented in its true sense, can reduce road accident mortality in India to a great extent. But as long as this scheme remains only on paper, it will remain just another ‘scheme’ – shining in slogans, but oblivious to the blood shed on the road.

Blood flows on the roads of this country – and the system waits for the portal to load.