Chattisgarh High Court
Hope Well Hospital vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 September, 2021
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 3991 of 2021
Hope Well Hospital Through The Director Dr. Rajesh Chandra, Aged About
63 Years S/o Late Shri Hari Charan Chandra Sant Kanwar Ram Chowk,
Kaotra Talab, Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director Health Services Cum Chief Executive Officer, Aayushmaan Bharat,
Pm Jan Aarogya Yojna And Cm Swastha Beema Yojna, 2nd Floor, Old,
Nursing, Hostel, Behind D. K. S. Bhawan, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Chhattisgarh Medical Council Through The Registrar, 1st Floor, Dr.
Balmukund Sharma Clinic, Kankalipara, Near Nagar Nigam Ayurvedic
Hospital District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. Religare Health Insurance Company Through The Chief Regional Manager,
136, Lower Basement, Shyam Square, Pandri Rd, Opp. Lic Building, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Health And Medical Officer District Raipur Chhattisgarh
6. Collector Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 30.09.2021
1. Heard
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a notice has been issued on 02.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) by the Chhattisgarh Medical Council Raipur with an allegation for which the petitioner already stand punished by the State. He submits that under a Healthcare Scheme of 2017, the State Agency, National Agency and Insurance Company were the parties and the petitioner was empaneled as to provide medical service to public at large. It is alleged that during the period the number of the surgery and the treatment which was given to public was disproportionate within a short period of five months as different types of surgeries were performed of 1384 patients. It is submitted that the petitioner has already been removed from the panel of State and a fine of Rs. 35 Lakhs which was imposed has already been deposited. It is stated that thereafter on the allegation the Chhattisgarh Medical Council Raipur has issued the notice on 02.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) for which they do not have any right and jurisdiction, therefore, the said order Annexure P/1 be stayed.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the argument.
4. The documents annexed with the petition would show that for a reason that the petitioner has performed the number of surgeries within a short span of time for which the amount was paid by the Insurance Company and the State, Rs.35,24,500/- was directed to be paid in the year 2019. The admission of the petitioner exists is on record. Subsequently, the impugned notice Annexure P/1 dated 02.09.2021 has been issued by Chhattisgarh Medical Council Raipur in respect of Spinal Canal Stenosis cases which were treated. During the course of argument, it is submitted that the reply was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Chhattisgarh Medical Council Raipur do not have any jurisdiction to issue such notice. If the petitioner is sanguine of this aspect, then he can raise his ground before the authority itself which has issued the notice. The notice only speaks that certain complaints have been received for Spinal Canal Stenosis treatment.
5. Prima facie the number of surgeries of 1384 patients, which has been performed within a period of 5 months i.e. 150 days, appears to be disproportionate and the Super Speciality Hospital, which the petitioner claims, cannot reach to the level of superiority with acceleration in operation considering the working hours in a day. The petitioner claims to be depanelised under certain scheme for such reason and this issue is completely different for which the notice has been issued on 02.09.2021 vide Annexure P/1. The petitioner still have the ground to put forth his defence before the Chhattisgarh Medical Council including the jurisdiction. At this stage, the petition appears to be premature, and therefore, I am not inclined to arrest the issuance of notice dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure P/1).
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) JUDGE Vishakha