Telangana High Court
Ravindranath Ge Medical Associates ... vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 17 August, 2020
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 12968 OF 2020
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) With the consent of both the learned counsel, this writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
The petitioner, M/s. Ravindranath GE Medical Associates Private Limited, has challenged the legality of the show-cause notice, dated 10.08.2020, issued by the District Registration Authority, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, the respondent No. 5, whereby the respondent No. 5 has not just directed the petitioner to submit the patient reports/bills for its perusal, but most importantly, has directed the petitioner to surrender the Certificate of Registration to the respondent No. 5.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is incorporated as an health care group providing high quality health care services. It is particularly focused to providing health care services to life saving treatment, like liver transplants, cardiac and gastro surgeries to its patients. According to the petitioner, it operates a chain of hospitals in Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, and Mumbai. During the present Covid-19 pandemic, it is treating fifty-seven patients for Coronavirus out of whom, thirty-three are suffering in different stages of Covid-19. According to the petitioner, it is strictly complying with G.O.Rt. No. 248, dated 15.06.2020, and G.O.Rt. No. 281, dated 06.07.2020 issued by the Government, which prescribe the maximum chargeable fees by the private hospitals. Therefore, the petitioner 2 was surprised to receive the notice, dated 30.07.2020 (the First Notice) issued by the District Medical and Health Officer, Hyderabad District, respondent No. 4. According to the respondent No. 4, there were two complaints received against the petitioner's Lakdikapool unit. Consequently, the petitioner replied to the said notice clearly stating that the first of the two complaints, namely complaint bearing No. GRV66/24-07-2020 is an anonymous complaint, and there are no details of the Covid-19 status report. In the complaint, not even the date of the treatment is mentioned. Therefore, the said complaint cannot be considered against the petitioner. Moreover, the second complaint, namely bearing No. GRV67/18-07-2020, was made by the relatives of one Ms. Subalekha Tallapally, who was admitted initially on 15.07.2020, and unfortunately, she died. Although initially, a bill was raised by the appellant, but subsequently, considering the fact that she had died, the bill was drastically reduced by the appellant.
Despite the fact that the petitioner submitted its reply to the show-cause notice, the petitioner has received the Second Notice, namely notice dated 10.08.2020, wherein he has been directed to appear before the concerned authority on 17.08.2020, and has also been directed to surrender the Registration Certificate.
Mr. Srinivas Dhammalapati, the learned Senior Counsel, submits that the provisions of the Telangana Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002 ('the Act', for short) prescribe a procedure for the establishment and regulation of the private hospitals. Section 9 of the said Act deals with cancellation/suspension of the registration. 3 According to the said provision, the Authority is empowered to cancel, or suspend the registration, either suo motu, or upon a complaint inter alia on the ground that the medical care establishment is violating, either the terms and conditions of the registration, or is violating any other directions given by the Authority. The first proviso of the Section clearly states that before a registration can be cancelled, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the erring private hospital. However, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has been directed by the impugned notice to surrender the Certificate of Registration. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, although the impugned notice may claim to be a show-cause notice, but it tantamounts to suspending/cancelling the registration of the petitioner's hospital. Therefore, the said notice is clearly in violation of Section 9 of the Act.
Secondly, the immediate cancellation/suspension of the registration would prevent the petitioner from carrying out the treatment of those patients who continue to be in the hospital, thereby jeopardising their health. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel pleads that the impugned notice should be set aside by this Court.
On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Prasad, the learned Advocate General, submits that constantly complaints are coming in against numerous private hospitals, with regard to their overcharging the patients for the treatment of Coronavirus. Despite the fact that the Government has issued two G.Os., namely G.O.Rt. No. 248, dated 15.06.2020, and G.O.Rt. No. 281, dated 06.07.2020, whereby the Government has prescribed the maximum chargeable rates for 4 treatment, and for medical examinations, many private hospitals are defying the said G.Os. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 was justified in issuing the impugned notice to the petitioner as there were complaints received against the conduct of the petitioner. Hence, the learned Advocate General has defended the impugned notice.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned notice.
The impugned notice is reproduced here as under:-
FORM-VIII [See rule 7(b)] Government of Telangana Health Medical & Family Welfare Department District Registering Authority Notice Reference No.18/COVID-19/DM&HO/HYD/2020: Dated 10.08.2020 To Medical Director/Managing Director, Global Hospital, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.
I hereby give notice that information and evidence have been placed before this Authority regarding the allegation of charging viz, rates in excess of ceiling prescribed by Government of Telangana vide G.O.Rt.No. 248, HM&FW(D) Dept. Dt. 15.06.2020 read with G.O.Rt.No. 281, HM&FW (D), Dt.06.07.2020 for treating Covid-19 patient in the case of Grv.No.66/24.07.2020 and GRV 67/18.07.2020 of Subalekha Tallapally and the patient reports/bills are submitted to this office on 06.08.2020 and verified the all records identified lapses.
You are hereby required to attend before the undersigned at 10:30 am on 17.08.2020 to answer in writing to the above charges to establish any denial or defence along with papers and documents in your possession relevant to the matter and any person(s) whose evidence you wish to lay before the undersigned.
Your answer which you may desire to make relating to the above mentioned charges or your defence thereto must be addressed to the undersigned and transmitted so as to reach him not less than two days before, the day appointed for hearing of the case. You are entitled to be represented before the undersigned by an Authorised Person or Legal Practitioner and the same must be informed in writing to the undersigned at least two days before the hearing. It is imperative that you should surrender your certificate of registration to the undersigned before or on the date of hearing. You are hereby further informed that if you do not attend as required above, the undersigned will proceed with the material available with him and decide the matter in your absence.
Xxx (Dr. J. Venkati, MBBS, DGO) Signature and Name of the District Registering Authority (Office Seal) Copy submitted to the Director of Public Health for kind information. 5 A perusal of the impugned notice clearly reveals that the notice is bereft of any details, with regard to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Secondly, it directs the petitioner to surrender the Certificate of Registration.
Section 9 of the Act is as under:-
9. (1) If the Authority is satisfied suo motu or on a complaint that a private medical care establishment has violated any of the terms and conditions of the registration or any of the directions, it has given or has contravened any of the provision of this Act or the rules made thereunder, the Authority may order cancellation or suspension of the registration for such period as it may think fit:
Provided that before a registration is cancelled the private medical care establishment shall be given an opportunity of making a representation:
Provided further that where the Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend the registration of any private medical care establishment without issuing any notice.
(2) On the cancellation or suspension of the registration under sub-section (1), no person, shall be thereafter admitted in the said establishment either as an inpatient or out-patient:
Provided that a person already admitted in the said establishment before the registration is cancelled or, as the case may be, suspended, shall continue to be treated therein until he is discharged and on the discharge of the last of such persons, the said establishment shall be closed.
A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that although the Authority is competent to issue a notice, either suo motu, or upon a complaint against a private hospital, even then, a procedure established by Section 9 of the Act would necessarily have to be followed. According to the first proviso, before a registration can be cancelled, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the erring private hospital. According to the second proviso, even if the Authority were of the opinion that registration needs to be suspended, on an urgent basis, even then, it is 6 required to record reasons, and to reveal that such an immediate suspension of the registration is, indeed, in public interest.
According to the second proviso, the registration can, indeed, be suspended without even issuing any notice. But obviously, the power to suspend, without issuing notice, is qualified by the words "reasons to be recorded in writing". However, in the present case, the authority has asked for the surrendering of the Registration Certificate without following the procedure prescribed by Section 9 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 10.08.2020 is clearly in violation of Section 9 of the Act.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is, hereby, allowed. The impugned notice dated 10.08.2020 is set aside.
However, this court grants the liberty to the respondent No. 5 to issue a notice strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, stand closed.
________________________________________ (RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ) _____________________________ (B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J) August 17, 2020 Tsr 7 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 12968 OF 2020 (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) 17.08.2020 Tsr