Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. The impugned order dated 01.03.2004, in its first 13 paragraphs, refers to previous history. The application of mind is contained in paragraph no.14. In paragraph no.14, the observations made earlier by CDEC are reproduced. Those observations are (i) Compliance with clause 2(a) about 40% free outdoor treatment has to be "in the hospital" where equipments are installed; (ii) Persons attending medical camps cannot be called as out patients; screening does not imply medical, surgical or diagnostic treatment, such persons seen in camps cannot be accepted as patients who have approached hospital. The intention of Notification No. 64/88, is to provide secondary and tertiary health care to patients who do not wp1280.04.odt have access /affordability to such treatment. In paragraph no. 14[iv], there is a reference to findings of three Member Inspection Team deputed by Rosha Committee. The said findings of Rosha Committee are in Clause [a] to [h] of sub-para [iv] of para 14. Thereafter, there is reference to judgment of Madras High Court in case of Apollo Hospital, and it is mentioned that said judgment has been appealed against. In sub-para [vi] the effect of resending of Notification No. 64/88 has been looked into and then there is reference to judgment of Karnataka High Court in case of Chhaparal Health Services .vrs. Union of India -(Writ Petition Nos. 35286/2000 and 3740/2001). It is observed that only consequence flowing from repeal notification is that future imports made by the hospitals would not be exempt. Then there is reference to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mediwell Hospital and in case of Commissioner of Customs .vrs. Jagdish Cancer Institute. Thereafter, in sub-paragraph [ix], Division Bench judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court has been referred. In sub-para [xii] of para 14, the impugned order, findings of fact that petitioners have not maintained hospital records and submission of Form 3-C of Income Tax Rules, its rejection appear.

wp1280.04.odt

25. It is not in dispute before us that the petitioner was not given copy of report submitted by the team sent for inspection on deputation of Rosha Committee. Similarly, report of CDEC Committee drawn extensively in paragraph no.14 of the impugned order, is also never made available to them.

26. The petitioners have along with their reply to show cause notices, have given 6 charts, which mention outdoor patients treated by the hospitals from 1990-91 till February, 2003, year wise. Number of camps conducted and patients examined therein are also given. These patients at camps and patients treated at hospital are added together in last column under heading "Total patients seen". In second chart, year wise number of outdoor patients are mentioned. Against 4 camps, again number of free patients finds mention. In last column, total free patients seen, are put together. When these two charts are compared, as against total outdoor patients in hospital figure of 37,284 (patients shown as outdoor patients of hospital in above period), total 9042 patients are shown to be treated free. This proportion is roughly 24%. The patients at wp1280.04.odt camps are shown as seen free. If this number of camp patients is added, out of total figure of patients of 65,886, total free patients seen during above period are 37,644, which is approximately 50%. In next chart, again there is year wise breakup of total patients seen, total free patients seen with calculation of their percentage. In chart no.4 at Page No.214, (marked as Annexure-K) with the petition, similar arrangement in relation to indoor patients and camp patients can be seen. Thus, for total indoor patients of 2762, during above period, free indoor patients are shown at 213, which is little less than 10%. The total free patients admitted during this period are 3480, while total free patients admitted are shown to be 931, in chart at page no.215 (marked as Annexure-L) with the petition. Again this proportion is little above 25%. In last chart at Page No.216 (marked as Annexure-M) with the petition, this percentage is also reflected.

27. Impugned order does not comment upon correctness of or relevance of position appearing in these charts. In absence of report of Rosha Committee or CDEC Committee, it is not very clear why these assertions of treatment of outdoor patients, indoor poor wp1280.04.odt patients by petitioners have not been considered or relied upon by respondent no.1 in the impugned order.

29. Thus, when there were two sets of contention before respondent no.1, respondent no.1 ought to have verified original records and thereafter recoded a finding on correctness or otherwise of assertions of the petitioners. This exercise also has not been undertaken. We find that respondent no.1 has mechanically acted wp1280.04.odt upon the report of Team deputed by the Rosha Committee and the findings of CDEC Committee. We therefore, find that there is no independent application of mind by respondent no.1 to the controversy.