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

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SANJAY AMBASTHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC 2653/2021



Advocates:
['SHAKTI RAJ SINHA', '', 'Nishi Kant Sinha', 'A G']

-1-

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

W.P.(C) No. 2653 of 2021

Sanjay Ambastha, S/o. Mohan Gopal Ambastha, Aged About 51 Years,

R/o. Suman Sadan, Darripara, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare

Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Nodal Officer, Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Regional Transport Office,

Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The District Collector, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4. D.H.O. cum Inquiry Officer, Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer,

District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5. Ram Krishna Care Medical Science Pvt. Ltd., Through The Management,

Aurobindo Enclave Pachpedhi Naka, Dhamtari Road, District Raipur

Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Alok Bakshi, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

ORDER

02.07.2021

Heard

1.

The facts as pleaded, the petitioner's mother, aged about 69 years, was

admitted to hospital named Ram Krishna Care Medical Science Pvt. Ltd.

on 22.09.2020 with an infection of Jaundice and no symptom of Covid-19.

Subsequently, she was put in a Covid ward after she was tested covid

positive at the time of admission. It is stated that the mother was

administered with Remdesivir Injection and due to wrong treatment of

administrating injection her health got deteriorated from 26.09.2020.

Subsequently after deterioration Remdesivir injection was stopped.

Further, on 29.09.2020 RTPCR test was conducted wherein she was

found covid negative but still she was kept with the covid patient and on

-2-

02.10.2020 the mother of the petitioner died due to post covid

complication. Further, it is stated that the dead body was delivered to the

petitioner without following the safety protocol and it was transported

through the Ambulance without safety measures. Consequently, violation

of guidelines issued by the Central and the State Government was

committed by the respondent No.5, hospital, for which they are liable to be

prosecuted. With such pleading the two fold prayer is made. The hospital

is responsible for the negligent treatment and another one that the hospital

did not follow the covid protocol norms in handling the dead body;

therefore, the hospital is liable to be prosecuted.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mother of the

petitioner when admitted was tested Covid-19 positive and though she

recovered from covid but eventually died on 02.10.2020. Before the date

of death, the RTPCR test was carried out of patient for covid and it was

found that she was negative; thereby recovered from covid but died

subsequently. It is stated though the mother of the petitioner died because

of covid complication yet after her death the dead body was handed over

without following the guidelines issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Annexure P-6). He would submit that

as per the guidelines, the Hospital was required to give the body in a

double layer leak proof zipped body bag and to be handed over to the

transport employee. Whereas, in respect of case of mother of petitioner, it

was handed over to the petitioner instead and the petitioner carried the

body to Ambikapur and cremated the body there only. Consequently, the

guidelines which was issued under the Pandemic Act were not followed.

The counsel further submits that the applications complaining the

incidents were made to the respective Director, Health Services wherein

allegations were made but it was not taken care of. Therefore, this petition

to proceeding against the hospitals for penal actions.

-3-

3.

Learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the counsel for

the petitioner.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the

documents appended thereto.

5.

The primary

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top