Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. Mr.Kumar, submits that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 26.06.2012 wherein all the deficiencies found pursuant to the inspection carried out on 16.06.2012 were clearly pointed out and in reply thereto dated 27.06.2012 all the issues regarding hostel, staff quarters, nurses accommodation, kitchen, accommodation for married nurses, deficiencies in the OPD area, deficiencies in the radiology department, records of ultra- sound reports, deficiencies in the ultra-sound machine and deficiencies in ICCU, RICU, lack of faculty have been addressed by the petitioner and thus it cannot be said that the petitioner was at any disadvantage on account of non-receipt of the assessment report formally.

Note: - Please noted that this is a surprise assessment. Hence, please do not interact with college authorities in this regard."

30. It is the case of the petitioner that the assessors had to follow a specific mandate i.e. to verify compliance submitted by the petitioner on the deficiencies pointed out in the MCI inspection report. Reading of the letter would show that these two professors were requested to verify only issues related to the deficiencies raised in the earlier assessment of 17- 18/02/2012. The assessors carried out a surprise inspection on 16.06.2012, wherein deficiencies were pointed out. The deficiencies pointed out to the petitioner are under various heads. Petitioner was informed that the deficiencies were observed pertaining to size of rooms in the boys and girls hostel being grossly inadequate, no separate hostel for residents (SR/JR), two apartments being short for teaching staff, quarters accommodation for nurses being short by 16, mess/ kitchen facility not available, no provision for accommodation for married nurses, inadequate OPD area, deficiencies of two technicians in the radiology department, against the total strength of 8, as per MCI norms. Deficiency of one ultra-sound machine or a colour Doppler machine, records of ultrasound, gross deficiencies of faculty in the general medicine department, and many patients with no ailments or for minor ailments were shown admitted. The case records of many patients were incomplete. Similar was the situation in the general surgery department, and many patients with fake complaints were shown admitted and case records of many patients were incomplete. In the ICU, RICU, CICU, GICU & SICU the patients admitted were relatively stable as none of the patients were either on oxygen therapy and ventilator support or even on IV line; aseptic precautions were not followed. The data submitted previously by the college authority was not consistent with the rule book. The above areas were not fully equipped in terms of availability of ventilators/ non-invasive ventilators/ multi- para-Monitors which are basic essential for any patient admitted; and the other deficiencies as per the assessment report were also relied upon. The petitioner by a communication dated 27.06.2012 responded to all the deficiencies which were brought to their notice and explanations were rendered on their behalf. The submissions made by counsel for the petitioner are to be considered in the light of the inspection carried out on 17-18/02/2012 and 16.06.2012.

"Special Note The college authorities were aware of the impending assessment for the compliance of the deficiencies pointed out as we were received at the college premises on arrival. It is an issue of serious concern, since it was a surprise inspection."

[Emphasis supplied]

33. In this detailed inspection report dated 16.06.2012, it has been pointed out that in the boys hostel each room measures around 4 sq. mtrs, which accommodates three students, while the space required for a student as per the MCI norms is 10 sq. mtrs, which would show that the size of the room in the boys hostel is grossly inadequate, as per MCI norms. It was noticed that few rooms in the boys and girls hostels have been allotted to four students which is again a violation, and many rooms in girls hostels were fabricated with temporary structures like aluminum and particle boards. Shortage was found of one bed in psychiatry department, shortage of two labs in physiology department. There were no mess and accommodation facilities in RHTC, although some folding beds were put in three rooms. There were more serious deficiencies in the radiology department. On physical verification only three radiology technicians were seen, and the evidence of leave of the person was not made available, despite request. There was lack of equipments in the radiology department. Since it appears that the petitioner had advanced notice of the so called surprise inspection, in the medical department many patients with no ailments or minor ailments were shown admitted. It has been noticed that even attendants (including two small kids) were occupying the bed giving a false impression of higher bed occupancy. Case records of many patients were incomplete, history of investigation treatment was lacking. Only one doctor was available in the medical ward. Senior Faculty and HOD were absent on ward visit. The assessors have also observed that they had asked the Dean for head count of the faculty of General Medicine, and after waiting for two hours, she was able to produce part of the faculty, according to which only one associate professor out of 5, 2 assistant professors out of 6, 3 senior residents out of 9, and 10 junior residents out of 18 were found at the hospital. The assessors also found it difficult to satisfy themselves as to whether the junior residents actually belong to medicine department or not, as their identity cards produced, did not mention as to which department they were attached to.