Point of Law: Treatment of COVID patients - During critical medical and health situation, it was the bounden duty to petitioner to have maintained highest ethical standards by not indulging in violating Government orders in respect of treatment of COVID patients.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. This writ appeal would call in question the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellant's (henceforth ‘the petitioner’) writ petition seeking quashment of the orders dated 04-05-2021 and 05-05-2021 (Annexure P-1), as is marked in the writ petition.

2. By the orders under challenge in the writ petition, the registration granted to the petitioner hospital has been suspended for one month and has been restrained to admit new COVID patients for treatment for one month from the date of order, which was operated from the discharge of last COVID patient under treatment in/with the hospital.

3. The petitioner is a super specialty hospital registered under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (commonly known as ‘the Nursing Home Act, 2010’) [henceforth ‘the Act, 2010’]. On 19-09-2020, the hospital was allowed permission for treating 100 patients, out of which 60 beds were reserved for COVID patients and 40 beds were reserved for suspected COVID patients. By order dated 05-04-2021 passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer (henceforth ‘the CMHO’) the hospital was made a dedicated COVID-19 hospital. It was further instructed that out of 60 reserved beds for COVID patients, 41 beds should be oxygenated beds and 2 should be ventilator beds.

4. On receipt of some complaint about commission of irregularities by the hospital in treating the COVID patients, an inspection was carried out on 27-04-2021 finding the following short comings:

(i) In violation of permission to have 60 COVID beds, the hospital was operating 100 COVID beds and all the patients were treated in the COVID ward.

(ii) It was found that the hospital is charging separately for pathology test, hematology test, X-ray, USG and serology investigation and is also charging for Remdesivir injection at a rate higher than the rate fixed by the State government.

(iii) Account for sale and purchase of Remdesivir injection has not been maintained as per the rules and the stock of medicines were found NIL.

(iv) Batch No. of injections purchased by the hospital were found discrepant.

5. On the above allegations, the petitioner was directed to submit reply. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner submitted its reply denying the charges levelled against it. In respect of Remdesivir injection, it was stated in the reply that the same was purchased by a medical shop situated in the hospital premises. Finding the reply unsatisfactory, the orders impugned in the writ petition were passed by the concerned authority.

6. It was the stand of the State Government before the writ Court that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts and that the impugned orders are appealable under the Act, 2010 read with the Rule 9 of the Nursing Home Rules, 2013, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. It was the further contention of the respondent that the Director, Health Services, Raipur, authorised the CMHO to grant necessary permission to the petitioner to run COVID hospital and the petitioner was authorized to admit 60 COVID patients only and that taking benefit of shortage of Remdesivir injection the petitioner hospital was involved in black marketing of the said injection. The illegalities committed by the petitioner hospital were widely reported in the newspapers, therefore, a Committee was constituted to conduct inspection and as per the report, the illegalities and irregularities, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, have been found.

7. It was stated by the State that the petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice without seeking copy of the enquiry report and, as such, it cannot be said that there is violation of principles of natural justice or that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. After the order was passed on 04-05-2021, the petitioner submitted a representation before the District Collector but in this representation also, the issue of non