SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, P. Dhanabal, JJ
The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services – Appellant
Versus
B.P. Jain Hospital Unit of Sankara Health Education and Charitable Trust – Respondent
Writ Appeal 2733 of 2024 | C.M.P. No.20002 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. M. Sneha
For the Respondents: Mr. Purujit Narayanan, Mr. V. Prakash, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Krishnamoorthy

Administrative authorities must follow procedural fairness by providing written reasons and a hearing opportunity before imposing sanctions under the Act.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishment (Regulations) Act, 1997 - Section 5(2) - Suspension or cancellation of registration - The Writ Court quashed the order issued by the Joint Director of Health Services to cancel the hospital's registration due to failure to follow the mandatory procedures of providing a reasonable opportunity for hearing and recording reasons for invoking emergency measures. (Paras 1, 7, 11)

(B) Notice and Opportunity - Administrative powers should be exercised after giving reasonable opportunity for a hearing to establishments prior to punitive measures. The authority needs to substantiate its decision with written reasons. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
A patient admitted for surgery at the 1st respondent's hospital died post-surgery; an inspection led to a temporary suspension of the hospital’s registration by the 2nd appellant. The Writ petition successfully challenged the legality of the suspension.

Findings of Court:
The appellant’s order lacked justification and failed to follow procedural requirements outlined in Section 5(2) of the Act, leading to the conclusion that the Writ Court’s decision was sound.

Issues: The key issues involved were whether the proper procedure was followed by the 2nd appellant before suspending the hospital's registration and whether the Writ Court had overstepped its bounds.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adherence to established procedure when enforcing administrative regulations, particularly the requirement of providing reasons and an opportunity for those affected to respond.

Result: Writ appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background of the case with inspection and patient death. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding procedural lapses in order issuance. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's emphasis on procedural requirements outlined in the act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. final conclusions regarding the dismissal of appeal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.)

This Writ Appeal has been preferred as against the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No.13972 of 2023 dated 24.05.2024, wherein the 1st respondent herein has filed a Writ petition challenging the order passed by the 2nd appellant in Proceedings in Na. Ka No./1032/Ka2/2024 dated 04.05.2024 stating that a surprise inspection was made by the 2nd appellant / Joint Director of Health Services, Chengalpattu District along with others in the 1st respondent hospital on 03.05.2024 in respect of death of one S. Hemachandran S/o. Selvanathan, T.V. Nagar, Pudhupalayam Street, Pondicherry, who was admitted on 21.04.2024 at B.P. Jain Hospital as in patient and declared as dead on 21.04.2024 at 9.05 p.m. at Dr. Rela Hospital, Chrompet for some deficiencies found in the impugned order by invoking Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Clinial Establishment (Regulations) Act, 1997. The certificate was issued to the 1st respondent was temporarily suspended and also instructed to shift the inpatient to other hospital before 06.05.2024 and the hospital should not admit any new patient as outpatient and inpatient from today onwards i.e., on 04.05.2024 until further orders. The said order was under challenge before the Writ Court. The Writ Court quashed the said order on the ground that the order passed was not in consonance with Section 5(2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that one Dr. T. Perungo, working as a Senior Consultant, Department of SGE, Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery at Dr. Rela Hospital, Chrompet and a visiting consultant to the hospital, referred one S. Hemachandran, a patient with Morbid Obesity and with other medical co-morbidities such as uncontrolled type 2 Diabetes Mellitus for admission as inpatient for undergoing Laproscopic Gastric By-pass Surgery on 21.04.2024. The said Hemachandran underwent preoperative work up and evaluation and the Doctors at Dr. Rela Hospital have given cardiac and pulmonary clearance to undergo Laparoscopic Gastric By-pass Surgery. The said Hemachandran decided to have the surgery performed at the 1st respondent's hospital and the hospital admitted him and the surgery commenced on 22.04.2024 and the patient suffered with cardiac arrest as they commenced the surgery procedure and the surgery was aborted and sent to Dr. Rela Hospital ICU, and Dr. Perungo also consented to it, the patient was referred to Dr. Rela Hospital. The patient was admitted to Rela Hospital ICU and the patient was under care of Dr. T. Perungo and his team of Doctors at Dr. Rela Hospital from 22.04.2024 onwards and unfortunately, he died on 23.04.2024. The family members of the deceased Hemachandran refused to give consent for postmortem procedure and to receive the body, thereby, a team organized by the Joint Director, Health Services, Chengalpet District, the 2nd appellant herein, came for a surprise inspection on 03.05.2024 and based on the report, the 2nd appellant issued an order under Section 5(2) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act, 1997, temporarily cancelling the Certificate granted to the hospital.

2.1. Challenging the said order, they filed a Writ petition before the Writ Court. The Writ Court failed to consider that at the time of surgery, there were lacunae in the hospital as well as in the operation theatre. The surgery performed on the deceased is bariatric surgery who weighed 145.5 kgs and the risk cardiac arrest would be very high and without high end equipment like ECMO, such surgery should never be p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top