Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sri Satya Sai Murlidhar Ayurvedic ... vs The Union Of India And Others on 19 October, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 19, 2012
Sri Satya Sai Murlidhar Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Moga
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Union of India and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdeep S. Singh, Sr. counsel assisted by
Central Government counsel
for the Union of India.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner Ayurvedic Medical College and Hospital located at Moga and being run under the name as Satya Sai Murlidhar Cum Ayurvedic Institute, Moga (Society) (Regd.) has approached this Court against the order dated 24.8.2012, whereby the College has been denied permission for making admission to 40 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 2 }:
seats to B.A.M.S. Course in the academic year 2012-13.
The petitioner-College was started in the year 1983. Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM) and Government of India granted permission for session 1983-84 and ever since that day, the College has been receiving permission to admit the students. Earlier, the College was affiliated to Guru Nanak Dev University and then with Baba Farid University of Health and Sciences, Faridkot, but now the College is affiliated to newly established University known as Guru Ravi Dass University, Hoshiarpur.
It is averred in the petition that College has received a letter dated 18.3.2011, vide which the Government has approved the draft minimum standard norms for conditional permission to run Ayurvedic Colleges for session 2011-12. The draft procedure for grant of permission was also issued on 21.3.2011 for consideration of cases of Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha Medical College. Another letter was received on 27.12.2011, laying down draft minimum standard norms for conditional permission to Colleges for academic session 2012-13.
A fresh inspection of the College was conducted by the CCIM for grant of permission for session 2012-13 on 21/22nd February, 2012. The petitioner College had filled up the proforma in regard to the details of land, infrastructure, teaching staff, non- teaching staff, OPD/IPD, hostel, library equipments etc. This proforma was accepted by the inspecting team of CCIM. It is, however, pointed out that the petitioner-College had inadvertently written the Department-wise figure of bed days occupied in place of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 3 }:
details of IPD patients. Further bed occupancy was mentioned in the percentage form instead of total number of bed days occupied. The inspecting team ultimately calculated the total number of bed days occupied as 43.69% between the period 1.1.2012 and 31.12.2011, which is above the minimum requirement of 40% bed occupancy. The only deficiency, which the visitors observed was regarding higher faculty in the Department of Rachna Sharir Dravyaguna, Rognidana, Agadtantra and Vidhi Ayurved, Kaumarbhritya, Shalya and Panchkarma and lecturers in the department of Kriya Sharir and Rasashastra and Bhaishajyakalpana.
On 8.7.2012, the College received a letter seeking clarification regarding the bed occupancy. On 12.7.2012, the College was also requested to appear with the original record of OPD and IPD on 19.7.2012 in the office of respondent No.2. On 19.7.2012, the College sought personal hearing and time to explain data relating to bed occupancy. The prayer was granted and the petitioner-College was directed to appear on 20.7.2012. On this date, the College submitted the correct details of IPD patients and also the total number of bed days occupied from 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011. On 27.7.2012, the College clarified the data as required by CCIM. The name of the petitioner College was accordingly recommended to Government of India for grant of conditional permission for Under Graduate course with the intake capacity of 40 seats for session 2012-13.
The grievance is that without taking into consideration, the recommendations made by CCIM, the petitioner College was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 4 }:
issued a show cause notice as to why permission to take admission in B.A.M.S. Course for session 2012-13 be not denied. The College submitted its reply on 12.8.2012. The petitioner-College admitted its mistake that it had wrongly written the department-wise figure of the bed days occupied in place of IPD patients and the total bed days occupancy was filled in percentage form. In the response so filed, it is further stated that this inadvertent mistake was rectified/clarified on 20.7.2012 and the correctly filled proforma was submitted. As per the College, there is no other irregularity/inconsistency, which exists in the College, other than the afore-mentioned inadvertent mistake while filling the proforma given by the visiting team.
The petitioner-College was given hearing by the Hearing Committee. The correct position was placed before the Committee with complete record. Still, the petitioner-College was served with an impugned order dated 24.8.2012, whereby the permission for taking admission to B.A.M.S. Course with 40 seats in academic session 2012-13 is denied. Earlier the petitioner had filed Civil Writ Petition No.17788 of 2012, which was got dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh for the same cause of action and hence, the petitioner has now filed the present petition to impugn the order passed by respondent-Union of India, declining this permission for session 2012-13.
Separate replies on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 are filed.
While disclosing the reasons for which the permission is refused, it is stated that the permission is declined due to non-
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 5 }:
fulfillment of one of the basic eligibility condition by an Institution to have a genuinely functional Ayurvedic Hospital with genuine patient load of 40% IPD bed occupancy. The permission if granted by ignoring this deficiency, would be violative of mandatory provisions of the Indian Medicine Council Act, 1970 (for short, "IMCC") Act to impart proper clinical training and teaching to the students coming out from the College to provide proper health care to the public at large. Reference is then made to the deficiencies observed by the visitation team of the CCIM, for which the hearing was afforded to the representative of the petitioner-College before arriving at the final decision. These deficiencies are as under:-
(i) The college had submitted the data of bed days occupancy for assessment period i.e. 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011 in which no. of patient admitted in IPD during the period in the different months in different departments and generated bed days in the different departments in the different months were almost same, which showed that the data regarding generated bed days was impractical and unauthenticated.
(ii) The representative of the college accepted that the college Authority had wrongly filled the details of the IPD patient admitted and number of bed days occupied in different departments from January to December, 2011 in the provided proforma by visitation team of the CCIM.
(iii) The representative of the college further accepted that due to lack of proper information of calculation of bed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 6 }:
occupancy method, such type of mistake had been made by the nursing staff of few IPD departments. But in future, they will take care of it..............
(iv) On the basis of provided report of CCIM, Hearing committee had verified the data of bed days occupancy for assessment period i.e. 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011, in which number of patients admitted in IPD during the period in the different months in different departments and generated bed days in the different department in the different months were almost same, which showed that the data regarding generated bed days was impractical and unauthenticated and indicated that the teaching hospital of the college did not appear to be a genuinely functional Ayurvedic Hospital having the genuine patient load of 40% of IPD bed occupancy during the period 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011.
(v) Further on examination of the case sheets of the different departments it was observed that some case sheets were not properly filled. Bed No. and ward no. were not mentioned in some of case sheets. In place of temperature, pulse and Blood pressure, no signature was there either by duty nurse or intern of the college or any other staff of the hospital. On examining the IPD Register of different department it was observed that in most of the Departments almost all patients were staying in IPD for 2 to 4 days, which creates doubt regarding the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 7 }:
genuineness of IPD cases. IPD Register of different Department was not properly maintained. The representative could not produce the Medicine dispensing Register for OPD and IPD. There is no separate Panchakarma Department. The representative of the college stated that Panchakarma patients are included in Kayachikitsa Department".
The Hearing Committee further observed that while calculating the bed days of some departments, the date of discharge of the patient is also calculated, which showed that the data for IPD bed days of patient was not authenticated. The Hearing Committee, after verification of the data, produced by the representative of the College, found certain irregularities/inconsistencies. In view of the data provided by CCIM and the observations made by the Hearing Committee, it was opined that the petitioner-College was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of having a genuine functional Ayurvedic Hospital with genuine patient load of 40% IPD bed occupancy during assessment period 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011.
The parties are not at any variance that for grant of permission to take admission to the College, it has to show that the College is having a genuinely functional Ayurvedic Hospital. As per the norms, the College has to show bed occupancy of 40%, which is the minimum requirement. This minimum criteria is even noticed in the impugned order, Annexure P-15 and can be noted here for the sake of convenience and assimilation:-
"(i)Teachers:
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 8 }:
a. For UG course: 90% eligible teachers, 50% Higher Faculty (Professor+Reader) and at least one teacher in each Department.
(ii) Beds in hospital a. Minimum 100 beds in hospitals of Ayurveda Colleges up to 50 intake capacity +1:2 student-bed ratio for 51-100 students intake capacity.
(iii) Daily average of 100 patients per day in OPDs of the hospital during last year.
(iv) 40% bed occupancy for UG courses and 50% bed occupancy for PG courses in IPDs of the hospital, and"
The impugned order would show that respondent No.1 has duly considered the recommendation of the visitation report of CCIM and has examined the same in terms of IMCC Act, relevant regulations and improved norms for grant of permission for academic session 2012-13 for Under Graduate course, which have been issued vide department letters dated 18.3.2011 and 21.3.2011, followed by 27.12.2011 as referred to above. The short comings which were conveyed in the notice have been duly noticed in the impugned order and so also the submissions and the claim made by the representative of the College. Against the each shortcoming conveyed to the College, the claim of the College is noticed and the observations of the Hearing Committee thereafter have been recorded to deal with the pleas raised by the representative of the College to explain the shortcomings.
The shortcoming noticed is that number of patients CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 9 }:
admitted in IPD during the relevant period in different months in different departments had generated bed days in different departments in different months were almost the same, which showed that the data regarding generated bed days was impracticable and not authenticated. In response, the representative of the College explained that the College authority has wrongly filled the details of the IPD patients as has been referred to above. The plea of the representative of the College is duly noticed in the observations made by the Hearing Committee and it is thereafter held that as per the report submitted by the CCIM to the Department, CCIM has provided only the details of total number of bed days occupied from January to December 2011 and not provided any detail of number of admitted patients. The Hearing Committee had verified the data of bed days occupancy for assessment for the relevant period and noticed that patient admitted in the IPD during the period in different months in different departments and generated bed days in different departments in different months were almost same, which showed that this is impracticable and unauthenticated. The view, thus, is formed by the Hearing Committee that the College does not appear to be having genuinely functional Ayurvedic Hospital having genuine patient load of 40% of IPD bed occupancy.
The Hearing Committee had also examined the case sheets of different departments and found that some of the case sheets were not properly filled, bed numbers and ward numbers were not mentioned in some of the case sheets, in place of temperature, pulse and blood pressure, no signatures were endorsed either by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 10 }:
Duty Nurse or Intern of the College or any staff of the Hospital. On examination of IPD register of different departments, it was observed that in most of the Departments, almost all patients were staying in IPD for 2 to 4 days, which created doubt regarding the genuineness of IPD cases. Even IPD registers were not properly maintained. The representative of the College could not produce the medicine dispensing register for OPD and IPD. The Committee also noticed that there was no separate Punchkarma Department and as per the representative, Punchkarma patients were included in Kaya Chikitsa Department. Even the date of discharge of some of the patients was calculated to count bed days of some departments, which created doubt about the authenticity of the bed days of the said department. Over-all observations of the Hearing Committee are also recorded and are as under:-
"In view of the above observation made by the Hearing Committee after verification of the data produced by the representative, there are certain irregularities/ inconsistencies are present. Similarly, on the basis of provided report of CCIM, Hearing Committee has verified the data of bed days occupancy for assessment period i.e. 1.1.2011 to 31.12.2011 in which number of patients admitted in IPD during the period in the different months in different departments and generated bed days in the different department in the different months are almost same, which shows that the data regarding generated bed days is impractical and unauthenticated and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 11 }:
indicates that the teaching hospital of the college does not appear to be a genuinely functional Ayurvedic Hospital having the genuine patient load of 40% of IPD bed occupancy during the period 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011."
Overall remarks of the Committee are as under:-
"In view of above data provided by the CCIM and observations made by the Hearing Committee, it appears that the applicant college does not have genuine functional Ayurvedic Hospital having genuine patients load of 40% IPD bed occupancy during assessment period 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2011."
On this basis, respondent No.1 had declined the permission to the petitioner-College.
Learned counsel for the petitioner did make a valiant attempt to urge that the inspection team had found the bed occupancy of the College to be 43.69% and respondent No.1 has not any valid reason to discard the same, as has been done. The counsel would further contend that the modified page 21, which was handed over to the inspection team, has not been kept in view while assessing the bed days occupancy in the hospital. This plea can not be accepted easily.
In the observations made by the Hearing Committee, reference is made to freshly filled page No.21 of the proforma. The copy of this freshly refilled page No.21 was also attached for ready reference, as can be seen from the observations made by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18270 OF 2012 :{ 12 }:
Hearing Committee. The reasons assigned, which have weighed with the Hearing Committee and which have formed the basis of denying this permission, are quite good and apparently do not suffer from any fault. The relevant aspect has been considered by the Hearing Committee. The College itself was amiss in not providing the requisite data in a proper form at the time of inspection. The Hearing Committee still made effort to see whether the patient load and the bed occupancy was genuine and authentic or not to ascertain if the petitioner-College was having a genuine patient load of 40% of the IPD bed occupancy. The reasons which led to drawing the inference that College has not provided authentic data to show and to satisfy the minimum requirement of bed occupancy are apparently reasonable and are rational. No irrationality or illegality is noticed in the view formed by the respondents on the basis of detailed order passed by the Hearing Committee. Each and every aspect has been considered and fair opportunity has been provided to the College to present its case. The principles of natural justice were duly followed. In view of this, there is hardly any reason for which this Court can substitute its view or interfere with the decision. There is no flaw noticed in the decision making process, for which any interference may be called for. Accordingly, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
October 19 , 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE