Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Chairman vs M/S. Sraddha Hospitals, on 10 August, 2022
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
Writ Appeal No.242 of 2022
JUDGMENT:- (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Heard Sri S. Appadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellants and Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for respondent nos.3 and 4.
2. The present Writ Appeal came to be filed, assailing the order dated 21.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.14495 of 2021, wherein the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition set aside the proceedings issued by the second respondent in Lr.No.Dr.YSR/AHCT/EDC/1726/2019, dated 05.07.2021.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved, it would be necessary to refer the facts in a nut shell. On 22.01.2021 one Sappa Sabarish lodged a complaint before the District Coordinator, Dr. YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust, Visakhapatnam, stating that his father approached COVID treatment centre in M/s.Sraddha Hospitals, Visakhapatnam in the month of August, 2020 and due to post COVID complications, he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam for treatment of heart ailments. Later, due 2 CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022 to sudden Cardiac arrest, his father is said to have died on 20.10.2020.
(a) It is stated that prior to admission in Apollo Hospital, Visakhapatnam his father was admitted in Sraddha Hospital, Visakhapatnam, which is registered for services under Aarogyasri Scheme. Thereafter, they have decided to shift his father to Pradhama Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment on cash basis, but the management denied admission due to history of Cardiac problem. From there, his father was taken to Unique hospital, but as the condition became very serious, he was admitted in Sraddha Hospital.
It is stated that at the time of admission in Sraddha Hospital, they met Aarogya Mitra, wherein it was found beds allotted for treatment under Aarogyasri are filled and no beds are allotted under Aarogyasri. Since the condition of the father of the complainant was critical, doctors advised NIV support to be given immediately.
(b) Having regard to the above, his father was admitted in the Sraddha hospital on cash basis and it was said that huge amount has been charged by the hospital. It is further stated that in spite of request for the treatment under Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister's Relief Fund [APCMRF], the hospital authorities have demanded that appropriate letter from Dr. YSR Aarogyasri Trust is necessary for considering the 3 CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022 same. The said complaint given on 22.01.2021 was enquired into and an order came to be passed on 05.07.2021, imposing the penalty of Rs.35,15,850/- to be paid to the Trust in the form of Demand Draft in favour of CEO, Dr. YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust, payable at Vijayawada, within 15 days and Rs.3,90,650/- [One time penalty amount] to be given to the patient. The order also speaks about suspending the licence to run the hospital for few months. Challenging the same, W.P.No.14495 of 2021 came to be filed.
4. Considering the rival contentions and taking into consideration the arguments advanced, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner has opted for Aarogyasri Scheme and that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice, as the impugned order proceeds on the basis of G.O., which was not set out in the show cause notice and no reasons are set out as to why the impugned decision was taken. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed by the Chairman, Disciplinary Committee, Dr.YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust and District Co-ordinator, Dr.YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust.
5. Sri S. Appadhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants mainly submits that the order under challenge does not stand to the test of legal scrutiny. According to him, 4 CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022 the respondent nos.1 and 2 in the appeal, have violated the Scheme and collected huge amount from the complainant. It is stated that hospital authorities have misguided the patients by giving wrong advice, thereby violating the Service Contract Agreement. It is stated that in the month of August, 2020, the said hospital has not even treated one patient under Aarogyasri Scheme, which clearly indicates the manner, in which, money was collected from the patients, though the patients are entitled for the benefits under Aarogyasri Scheme.
6. Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 opposed the same, contending that when there is no material to show as to whether the patient opted for being treated him under the Aarogyasri Scheme, imposing penalty and suspending licence on the ground that hospital has not treated the patient under the Aarogyasri Scheme, may not be correct. She further contends that the order of suspending licence is bereft of any reason, and as such, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice, more so, when no opportunity of personal hearing was given. In any event, she would contend that the reasons given by learned Single Judge warrants no interference.
5
CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022
7. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the order of the learned Single Judge warrants interference?
8. As seen from the record, pursuant to the complaint lodged, a show cause notice was issued on 14.06.2021. On receipt of the said show cause notice, respondent nos.1 and 2 herein, submitted an explanation in relation to the treatment given to the deceased-Sappa Gopal Rao. The record also shows an opportunity being given under the show cause notice in the virtual meeting held on 16.06.2021. It is the case of the respondents that the notice was received by the second respondent on 19.06.2021. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 05.07.2021 came to be passed suspending the licence for a period of three months and also imposing the penalty of Rs.39,06,500/-.
9. It is also to be seen that there is no material on record to show that the father of the complainant was treated under the Aarogyasri Scheme. Further, the appellants herein did not place on record any material to show that the father of the complainant or the complainant expressed or gave option for treatment under Aarogyasri Scheme. Therefore, when the father of the complainant was never treated under the scheme, the question of applying the G.O.Rt.No.210 dated 07.05.2021 would not arise.
6
CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022
10. At this stage, it is also to be noted that G.O.Rt.No.210 dated 07.05.2021 speaks about free and cashless treatment under Aarogyasri Scheme, which, inter-alia, contemplated that no person shall be denied admission on the ground that the quota of beds earmarked under Aarogyasri Scheme are exhausted. But, this G.O. was issued on 07.05.2021 which is much later than the period of said treatment i.e., in the month of August, 2020. Therefore, the argument that the said G.O. has not been followed, in strict sense, cannot be accepted. Apart from that, a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, clearly indicates that no reasons are assigned as to why such stringent action is sought to be proposed. Even, the complainant in his complaint nowhere speaks about the quality of treatment given or that the patients, though treated under Aarogyasri Scheme, were being forced to pay extra amounts.
11. Further, a reading of the order impugned in the writ petition only states that after careful examination of the guidelines of Scheme and Service Contract Agreement being violated the Disciplinary Committee recommends imposition of penalty and suspending of licence for a period of three months. Though, the order refers to violation of Scheme Manual under 8.1 [v] and Article 3 of Publications of Network Hospitals, no reasons are assigned as to how and what 7 CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022 manner the respondents 1 & 2 in the Writ Appeal has failed to comply with the said conditions.
12. Viewed from any angle, we see no reason to interfere with the order in appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR ________________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Date: 10.08.2022 MS 8 CPK, J & AVRB, J W.A.No.242 of 2022 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Writ Appeal No.242 of 2022 (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Date: 10.08.2022 MS