IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J., GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Rajiv Ranjan - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
W.P. (PIL) No. 4271 of 2019
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 - Section 2
(C) - Compliance standards for clinical establishments - The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand provided insufficient information regarding compliance with the Act by government institutions, focusing mainly on private establishments - The court emphasized the expectation of compliance by government-run clinical establishments. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Judicial Review - The court noted the incomplete data provided in the supplementary counter affidavit, highlighting the need for comprehensive reporting on complaints, actions taken, and compliance status of clinical establishments. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner pointed out discrepancies in the supplementary counter affidavit regarding compliance with standards by clinical establishments in Jharkhand, noting the absence of necessary details about complaints and actions taken against them.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand to rectify discrepancies in the data and file a complete supplementary counter affidavit.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the supplementary counter affidavit and the compliance of government clinical establishments with statutory standards.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that government clinical establishments must comply with the standards set by the Clinical Establishments Act, and emphasized the need for thorough reporting on compliance and actions taken.
Result: The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand was directed to file a fresh supplementary counter affidavit.
JUDGMENT :
We have perused the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand as also the rejoinder thereto filed by the party in person/petitioner.
2. The supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Director-in-Chief of the Health Services is silent as to compliance with the standards prescribed under the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 by Government institutions and only gives some data with regard to private establishments. When the definition of a clinical establishment in Section 2(C) of the Act includes clinical establishments owned, controlled or managed by a Government or a department of a Government, it is but natural to expect compliance with the standards laid down under the said statute by such clinical establishments which are owned, controlled or managed by the Governmental or a department of a Government.
3. We direct the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand to file a supplementary counter affidavit with regard to compliance by such establishments also of the provisions of the above statute and the Rules made thereunder.
4. The party in person/petitioner also mentions that there are 25 types of clinical establishments covered under the Statute and only 8 to 10 categories are mentioned in this supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand. The 25 categories are enumerated in paragraph 5 of the rejoinder affidavit.
5. He has also pointed out that standard treatment guidelines as per the Clinical Establishments Guidelines, 2010 under different categories of illness or ailment and health conditions are also not mentioned in the supplementary counter affidavit. List of these are mentioned in paragraph 5 B at pages 4 to 8.
6. We find force in the submissions of the party in person/petitioner and also notice that the data supplied with the supplementary counter affidavit is incomplete insofar as the following details are not furnished:
“7. xx xx xx
a) Date of complaint against particular Clinical Establishments not mentioned.
b) Complaint was made through public or by inspection of health department, it is not mentioned.
c) On what nature of offense, monetary penalty imposed or other action was taken, it is not mentioned.
d) Whether nature of offense was first contravention, second contravention or the subsequent contravention, it is not mentioned.
e) Reason for taking action has been mentioned almost same for all categories of Clinical Establishments, (Non Compliance of Standard)
f) Current status of Clinical Establishments after taking action not mentioned in data submitted as Supplementary Counter Affidavit.
g) Summary and discrepancies in the data submitted as "action taken report" or it can be said "Revenue collection report in the form of penalty as a formality by Health Dept. for Govt. of Jharkhand"
xx xx xx
7. The party in person/petitioner has also painstakingly pointed out in his rejoinder district wise how many clinical establishments are there in each district; what standards they have not complied; whether the contraventions are for the first time or multiple times and what is their current status. We place on record our appreciation for the thorough study made of the subject matter by the party in person/petitioner.
8. We direct the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand to rectify the discrepancies pointed out in the rejoinder affidavit of the party in person/petitioner and file a fresh supplementary counter affidavit complete in all details as mentioned above by the next date of hearing.
9. List on 05.03.2025.
Government clinical establishments are required to comply with standards set by the Clinical Establishments Act, and must provide comprehensive data on compliance and actions taken.
The court mandated strict compliance with the Clinical Establishments Act, emphasizing that non-enforcement leads to public health concerns, while personal grievances must be pursued through proper l....
The Kerala Clinical Establishments Act mandates transparency in healthcare costs and patient safety, reinforcing constitutional rights and promoting accountability in clinical practices.
The court emphasized that running a clinical establishment without a valid license is illegal, and the State must act to prevent unauthorized medical practices, which endanger public health.
The Kerala Clinical Establishments Act, 2018 is constitutional and serves public health goals, despite challenges regarding definitions and authority powers; due process safeguards were upheld.
Point of law: Facilities sending reports electronically should include electronic signature of the authorized signatory. Laboratories should be able to provide critical information required by a phys....
The court upheld the constitutionality of the Kerala Clinical Establishments Act, affirming the state's power to legislate on public health and emphasizing the need for regulation without arbitrary a....
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.