IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Sundara Multispecialty Hospital – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 2200 of 2021
Decided On : 28-05-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Nursing Home Act 2010 - Section 9(3) - Super specialty hospital - Granted permission - Suspended - Challenged - Petitioner has submitted its reply mainly contending that on petitioner has been granted permission for 100 bedded hospital for COVID out of which 60 beds for COVID patients and 40 beds for suspected COVID patients - Rates which have been shown in letter dated issued by Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh do not reflect about the rate of medicine or testing rate, and office has not been informed about rate for testing to be done and the medicine to be given to patients - Whether petitioner has been able to establish existence of “extraordinary circumstances” which would warrant High Court to invoke its writ jurisdiction or not? – Held, Court is of opinion that no extraordinary circumstances is made out by the petitioner to invoke writ jurisdiction by this Court - Accordingly, writ petition is not maintainable, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed - However, liberty is granted to petitioner to file an appeal as provided in Act of 2010 and Rule, 2013 made therein - Contentions raised by petitioner and respondents have only been considered to examine whether any extraordinary situation is available for this Court to exercise its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India - Instant writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, who is running Sundara Multispecialty Hospital (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Hospital’) has filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 04.05.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon whereby the registration granted to the hospital for violation of Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Anugyapan Adhiniyam 2010 (For short “the Act, 2010”) which is also commonly known as “Nursing Home Act 2010” has been suspended for one month and it has been restrained to admit new COVID Patients for treatment for one month from the date of order.
2. The facts projected by the petitioner, in brief, are that the petitioner is running a super specialty hospital at Rajnandgaon. On 19.09.2020, the hospital was granted permission for providing treatment to 100 COVID patients out of which 60 beds are reserved for COVID patients and 40 beds are reserved for suspected COVID patients. The Chief Medical Officer and Health officer vide its memo dated 05.04.2021 has made dedicated COVID hospital to Petitioner Hospital. It was further directed by respondent No. 3 that out of 60 reserve beds 41 beds should have been oxygenated and 2 ventilators should be made available in the Hospital.
3. The hospital was inspected by the Committee on 27.4.2021 and following short-comings were pointed out by the committee:-
4. The petitioner has submitted its reply mainly contending that on 19.09.2020 petitioner has been granted permission for 100 bedded hospital for COVID out of which 60 beds for COVID patients and 40 beds for suspected COVID patients. The rates which have been shown in the letter dated 05.09.2020 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Chhattisgarh do not reflect about the rate of medicine or testing rate, and the office has not been informed about the rate for testing to be done and the medicine to be given to the patients. So far as Remdesivir injection is concerned, this has not been purchased by the hospital but a shop situated in the hospital premises is providing this Remdesivir injection. During the inspection, it has been found that there were 36 Remdesivir injections and after inspection, 7 have been found to be used and in the mid-night 288 Remdesivir injections were received by the medical store. Since, the injection is not purchased by the hospital, there is no irregularity in records maintained by the hospital, but due to technical problem in software, the irregularity has been reflected which has already been intimated to the inspection committee.
5. Thereafter, inspection committe
Anirudhsinhji Karansinjhi Jadeja and Another vs. State of Gujarat
Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India Ltd. and Others
Captain Sube Singh vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas Bhanji
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala
Commissioner of Income Tax and Others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal
Hukum Chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner
State of Punjab vs. Hari Kishan
Thansingh Nathmal and Others vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.