Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: CDEC in Sir Ganga Ram Trust Society vs Union Of India & Ors. on 28 April, 2011Matching Fragments
28.04.2011
1. This is the second round of litigation involving the Petitioner‟s challenge to a decision dated 16th March 2001 passed by the Directorate General of Health Services (`DGHS‟) in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (`MHFW‟), Government of India, Respondent No. 5 withdrawing the customs duty exemption certificate (`CDEC‟) issued to the Petitioner for availing the benefit of exemption from payment of customs duty and additional duty of customs for importing/acquiring medical equipments for treatment of patients at the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital („SGRH‟) in New Delhi.
6. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Mediwell Hospital & Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 759 [hereafter `the Mediwell Hospital case‟], certain information was sought by the DGHS from the Petitioner Society on 12th May 2000 regarding (a) the date of installation of the equipments (b) number and percentage of OPD patients treated free and (c) number and percentage of indoor patients treated free whose family income was less than Rs. 500 per month. It may be mentioned here that in the Mediwell Hospital case, the Supreme Court had emphasized that the objective of giving free treatment to at least 40 per cent of the outdoor patients as well as free treatment to all the indoor patients belonging to families with an income of less than Rs. 500/- per month had to be achieved at all costs and that if the said obligation was not discharged steps ought to be taken for realization of the customs duty from such of those entities who had availed of the CDECs. The letter dated 12th May 2000 from the DGHS to the Petitioner sought information in respect of 44 equipments for which CDECs had been issued.
8. It is stated that the DGHS carried out a surprise inspection on 17th/18th January 2001. The Petitioner states that it was not at that stage given a copy of the inspection report and that without affording it an opportunity of being heard the DGHS passed an order dated 16th March 2001 withdrawing the CDECs granted to the Petitioner. It was observed in the said order that the information furnished by the Petitioner was not sufficient. The inspection had revealed that the SGRH was running a paid OPD facility for which no records had been kept. The investigations done in the paid OPD were much more than the patients attending the General OPD. All patients attending the General OPD had to pay Rs. 10/- as registration charges. Although the consultation provided was free, the claim of SGRH that it had given free treatment to 40% of its OPD patients was not correct. The admission register as well as the case sheets did not mention income of the patients and, therefore, it was not possible to verify whether the SGRH gave free treatment to indoor patients whose income was less than Rs. 500/- per month. No bed was earmarked for such patients. On the date of the visit, a substantial number of patients admitted to such beds informed the inspecting team that they had paid for the services earlier and were transferred to the General Ward category due to their inability to pay. Consequent upon the said inspection report the impugned order dated 16 th March 2001 was passed whereby the CDECs issued to the Petitioner in respect of 44 equipments stood withdrawn.
15. By the impugned order dated 28th August 2008 the DGHS reiterated its earlier order dated 16th March 2001. It was inter alia observed that the CDEC Committee had considered the request of the Petitioner to re- categorise the SGRH as a charitable hospital but did not agree with this request since this was made after a gap of 16 years after availing of the CDEC and further since the Petitioner Society had not been certified as a charitable organization by the MHFW. A reference was also made to the decision dated 31st October 2007 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7284 of 2005 and 5054 of 2007 [Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre v. Union of India and Keki Byram Grant v. Union of India respectively, 2007 (12) SCALE 714] declining a similar request. The impugned order further stated that the SGRH had not provided any fresh information to substantiate its claim of having fulfilled the terms and conditions of the Notification No. 64 of 1988 dated 1st March 1988.