Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The 2Nd vs Unknown on 21 September, 2021
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.P.No.14495 of 2021
ORDER:
The 2nd petitioner is the proprietor of the 1st petitioner, which is a hospital situated in Visakhapatnam. The petitioners are aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.Dr.YSR/AHCT/EDC/1726/2019, dated 05.07.2021 directing the 1st petitioner to pay a penalty of Rs.35,15,850/- to the CEO, Dr. YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust, an amount of Rs.3,90,650/- to be refunded to one Sappa Gopala Rao, failing which further disciplinary action would be initiated against the 1st petitioner and suspension of the 1st petitioner for three months from all the schemes of Dr. YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust.
2. The genesis for this case appears to be a letter dated 22.01.2021 written by one Sappa Sabarish to the 4th respondent. In this letter, it was stated that Sri Sappa Gopala Rao, the father of Sri Sappa Sabarish had been infected by the Covid-19 virus and sought admission in the 1st petitioner hospital under Aarogyasri scheme. However, since all the beds kept aside for the Aarogyasri scheme has been filled up, the patient was admitted on cash basis and had to pay a bill of Rs.6.7 lakh for the medical expenses. The request made in this letter was that the case of this patient be considered under the Chief Minister Relief Fund, as the hospital management was not willing to fill up the said reimbursement form on the ground that there were no instructions from the Dr. YSR Aarogyasri Health Care Trust.
3. This application was taken up as a complaint and a show cause notice dated 14.06.2021 was issued to the petitioners to give an explanation in relation to the treatment of Sri Sappa Gopala Rao as there 2 RRR,J.
W.P.No.14495 of 2021was violation of Article 17.2(vi) of the Aaroghyasree scheme. An opportunity of hearing was also provided under the show cause notice in the virtual meeting held on 16.06.2021. It is the case of the petitioners that this notice was received by the 2nd petitioner only on 19.06.2021. However, it appears that the petitioners did participate in this meeting on 16.06.2021. Thereafter, the impugned proceedings dated 05.07.2021 were issued. The relevant part of the impugned proceedings, read as follows:
"After careful examination of the violation guidelines of Scheme and Service Contract agreement the Disciplinary Committee recommended M/s.Sraddha Hospitals, Visakhapatnam District is imposed penalty Rs.39,06,500/- along with temporarily suspended for 3 months from all the schemes of Dr. YSR Health Care rust till further orders with immediate effect i.e., 05.07.2021.
Hence, the Managing Director/CEO of M/s. Sraddha Hospitals, Visakhapatnam is directed to pay the penalty amount of Rs.35,15,850/- (9 times penalty amount) 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 3,90,650/- (One time penalty Amount) to be refund to the patient (Sappa Gopala Rao-WAP013104200303/01) and instructed the NWH to send the refunded photographs to the trust. Failing to pay, further Disciplinary action measures will be initiated against your hospital. Further, the CEO/MD of M/s. Sraddha Hospitals, Visakhapatnam District is informed that the Disciplinary Committee ordered that during the period of Suspension the Network Hospital shall not raise pre authorizations and claims."
4. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the said proceedings are illegal, arbitrary and are a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He submits that the proceedings had been initiated on the ground that there was a violation of the service contract agreement with Dr. YSR Aarogyasree Health Care Trust, even though the patient was treated as a cash patient 3 RRR,J.
W.P.No.14495 of 2021in the hospital and outside the Aarogyasree scheme. He submits that in such a situation, the Aarogyasree scheme itself is not applicable and no proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the show cause notice dated 14.06.2021 does not mention G.O.Nos.77, 78 and 210. However, the impugned proceedings dated 05.07.2021 speak about the violation of these G.Os. He contends that the impugned proceedings could not have raised the grounds or G.Os. which are not mentioned in the show cause notice and any such reliance of such G.Os is itself a violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from this, he would draw the attention of this Court to the G.Os to contend that the said G.Os are irrelevant to the case on hand.
5. He contends that G.O.Ms.No.77, dated 08.07.2020 sets out the manner of treatment to be given to patients treated for the Covid-19 virus under the Aarogyasree scheme. When the patient was never treated under the scheme, the question of applying this G.O., would not arise. G.O.Rt.No.210, dated 07.05.2021 speaks about free and cashless treatment under Aarogyasree scheme, which provides that no person shall be denied admission on the ground that the quota of beds earmarked under Aarogyasree scheme has already been exhausted. However, this G.O was issued on 07.05.2021, which is much later than the period of treatment of the patient in August, 2020, and as such, the provisions of the G.O. issued after the period of treatment cannot be brought in support of the impugned order.
6. Apart from these grounds, Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya would also submit that a perusal of the impugned proceedings would show clear non- application of mind, as no reasons whatsoever are given in the said 4 RRR,J.
W.P.No.14495 of 2021impugned proceedings as to why the explanation given by the petitioners in the meeting held on 16.06.2021 was being rejected.
7. Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners would also contend that the issue raised by the patient was for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him from the Chief Minister Relief Fund. There was no complaint of any nature in the said letter about the quality of treatment or on the ground that the patients, who were treated under Aarogyasree scheme, were being forced to pay extra amounts.
8. Respondent No.2 has now filed a counter affidavit in which there is no explanation given as to why the impugned proceedings were issued except to say that the disciplinary committee had given adequate opportunity to the petitioners to explain their stand and their stand was not acceptable. The further contention of the 2nd respondent is that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as there is an effective alternative remedy of appeal is provided under the Scheme.
9. A perusal of the pleadings as well as the submissions made by both sides would clearly show that the patient in question had not been treated under the Aarogyasree scheme and was treated as a cash patient in the regular course by the 1st petitioner. In such circumstances, the question of applying Aarogyasree scheme or its guidelines would not arise. In any event, a perusal of the letter of the son of the patient would show that the said letter was addressed for reimbusement of the expenditure rather than any complaint against the petitioners. Apart from this, there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice as the impugned order proceeds on the basis of the G.Os, which were not set 5 RRR,J.
W.P.No.14495 of 2021out in the show cause notice and no reasons were set out in the impugned order as to why the impugned decision was taken.
10. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the second respondent has acted without authority and wholly out of jurisdiction by seeking to penalise the 1st petitioner for the treatment given to a patient outside the Aarogyasree scheme. In that view of the matter, the question of presence of an effective alternative remedy would not stop this Court from entertaining this writ petition.
11. In these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Lr.No.Dr.YSR/AHCT/ EDC/1726/2019, dated 05.07.2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 21st September, 2021 Note: Issue C.C. today.
(B/o) Js 6 RRR,J.
W.P.No.14495 of 2021HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO W.P.No.14495 of 2021 21st September, 2021 Js