Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 325 (TS)

B. Madhusudhan v. State of Telangana

2023-04-25

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Medical Health and Welfare and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6. 2. The Present Writ Petition is filed to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in allowing the 6th Respondent Hospital to continue giving Covid-19 treatment during period of hospitalization of the Petitioner herein even though the said hospital had no permission to give such treatment during the relevant period of Petitioner hospitalization dated 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020 thereby violating the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as directions of the Director of Public and Family Welfare, who had not included the 6th Respondent hospital in the list of hospital to give Covid-19 treatment as on 09.08.2020, and direct the 3rd and 5th Respondents, in particular, to cancel the license of the 6th Respondent hospital and consider representations of the petitioner dated 01.10.2021, 20.03.2021, 07.10.2021 & 17.11.2021. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) Petitioner and his family upon feeling uneasy having temperature visited the 6th Respondent hospital for medical check-up on 22.07.2020. The concerned hospital after checkup, informed that all members in the family were Covid-19 positive and that they required immediate hospitalization. Realizing the urgency, the petitioner along with his family were admitted in the 6th Respondent Hospital, wherein tests were conducted on daily basis from 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. b) Later, the petitioner and his wife were advised to leave the hospital whereas the Petitioner’s son continued to remain in hospital since he was exhibiting symptoms of Covid-19. c) The petitioner made several queries concerning license of respondent hospital, but the hospital authorities refused to give any information, in this regard and whether the hospital had been allowed by official Respondents to give Covid-19 treatment was not known. At the time of discharge, Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 gave a bill of Rs. 3,04,104/-. d) The Petitioner’s son was discharged after 15 days, on 15.08.2020 and his bill by the said Hospital authorities was raised to a tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. At the time of discharge, Respondent Nos. 6 to 11 gave a bill of Rs. 3,04,104/-. d) The Petitioner’s son was discharged after 15 days, on 15.08.2020 and his bill by the said Hospital authorities was raised to a tune of Rs.12,00,000/-. On 31.09.2021, the Petitioner wrote a letter to the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the Right To Information Act, 2005 in the office of the 5th Respondent, the District Health Officer to provide information regarding proposals submitted by the 6th Respondent Hospital to the 7th Respondent Authority for treatment of Covid-19 patients and permission/s therein, but no information has been received. e) On 12.10.2021, the Petitioner received communication from the 4th Respondent i.e., Director of Public Health herein, written to Joint Director IDSP and Covid-19 cell to provide information to the petitioner within (3) days i.e.,12.10.2021. f) The petitioner on 07.10.2021 received another letter from District Medical & Health Officer, R.R. District, which was a letter to DEMO, Hospital Registration Section directing to provide the information to the petitioner. Till date no information is received and the Petitioner request under Right to Information Act was not allowed. g) Thereafter, the Petitioner visited the 4th Respondent web-site and obtained a media bulletin dated 09.08.2020, wherein, the entire list of hospitals providing Covid-19 treatment were given. In the list, the 6th Respondent hospital was not listed meaning that the Respondent hospital did not have permission from the 4th respondent Authority to treat covid-19 patients during the relevant period of the Petitioner being hospitalized i.e., from 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. h) The actions of the official Respondents in allowing such hospitals to perform treatment without license causes danger to life and welfare of patients. The Petitioner had made detailed representations to the 5th Respondent dated 01.10.2021, 23.10.2021 & 17.11.2021 giving them all necessary information and seeking to cancel license of the 6th Respondent hospital. However, till date no action had been taken against the hospital by the official respondents 4 and 5. i) Petitioner’s son filed W.P. No. 10628 of 2021 wherein, it was prayed to consider the representation to take action against the hospital and its officials. However, till date no action had been taken against the hospital by the official respondents 4 and 5. i) Petitioner’s son filed W.P. No. 10628 of 2021 wherein, it was prayed to consider the representation to take action against the hospital and its officials. Inspite of the order dated 22.04.2021 to consider the representations of the petitioner herein, no action was taken by the respondents and thereupon, the Petitioner’s son filed C.C.No. 1042 of 2021 on the ground and the same was closed on 03.09.2021 that the affidavit does not show inaction of the Respondents. j) Instead of conducting investigation against the 6th to 11th respondents, the 4th and 5th Respondents sent an envelope with covering letter and cheques wherein the 5th Respondent stated that the 6th Respondent hospital is a NABH Certified hospital and is licensed to give the treatment. k) Thereupon, stated that there was overcharging of Rs.27,921/- in the case of the petitioner and enclosed cheque for the said amount, similarly another cheque for overcharging of Rs.78,270/- in the case of the petitioner’s son was also enclosed and there was an amount of Rs.24,399/- overcharged on the Petitioner’s wife and a cheque for the said amount was also enclosed, totalling to an amount of Rs. 1,30,590/-was paid in cheques, but not encashed by the petitioner till date. l) The said cheques issued by the 6th respondent were neither required by the petitioner, or the petitioner’s wife or by the petitioner’s son. The reply to the petitioner’s son representation dated 23.11.2020 is silent with regard to the date when license was approved, in the letter of the 5th Respondent vide Rc.No.SPL/DMHO-RR/2021. m) The petitioner prayed that the writ petition needs to be allowed and appropriate action may be initiated against the 6th respondent Hospital. 4. The Counter Affidavit filed by respondent No. 5, in particular, para 5 reads as under: “5. It is further informed that, the Evya Hospital, send three cheques as refund the excess amount to the (3) patients including complainant also one of them. 1. Cheque No.140534, Bank of India, dated 29.08.2021,Rs.78,270-00 2. Cheque No.140535, Bank of India, dated 29.08.2021, Rs.27,921-00 3. Cheque No.140536, Bank of India, dated 29.08.2021, Rs.24,399-00 to all(3) patients of complaint family members totalling Rs.1,30,590/-. Sri B.Rajesh again approached the Hon’ble Court for contempt o the case No.1042 of 2021, which was closed by Hon’ble High Court on 03.09.2021. 1. Cheque No.140534, Bank of India, dated 29.08.2021,Rs.78,270-00 2. Cheque No.140535, Bank of India, dated 29.08.2021, Rs.27,921-00 3. Cheque No.140536, Bank of India, dated 29.08.2021, Rs.24,399-00 to all(3) patients of complaint family members totalling Rs.1,30,590/-. Sri B.Rajesh again approached the Hon’ble Court for contempt o the case No.1042 of 2021, which was closed by Hon’ble High Court on 03.09.2021. Sri B.Madhusudhan, same family members, and same issue of M/s Evya Hospital is raised the issue of permission for COVID 19 treatment to said hospital. Whereas, on the detailed enquiry as per the material available, it was noticed that M/s Evya Hospital, Near Panama Godown, Vanasthalipuram, RR District is a NABH certified hospital and is a designated COVIT 19 centre in Ranga Reddy District approved by the Director of Public Health & Family Welfare.” 5. Counter Affidavit filed by respondents 6 to 11, in particular, paras 4 and 7 read as under: “4. I submit that respondent No.6 hospital made an application to respondent No.3 on 22.07.2020 for grant of permission to treat COVIT-19 patients. That since number of people nearby localities of respondent No.6 hospital were affected as such respondent No.5 informed us that respondent No.3 granted permission to Evya Hospital and they received letter No.SPL/COVID-19/DPHFW/Pvt/2020, dated 22.07.2020 and directed to treat patients as per the protocols and strategies of the State Govt/ICMR/MoHFW/GOI. 7. I submit that the petitioner and his son B.Rajesh are litigant persons and filing one or other petition before authorities for taking necessary action respondent No.5 herein. That as per the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.10628 of 2021, respondents 4 and 5 herein conducted enquiry and directed respondent No.6 herein to refund an amount of Rs.27.921/-, Rs.78,270/- and Rs.24,399/- totalling to Rs.1,30,590/- to petitioner, his wife and son, for overcharging. I submit that respondent No.6 issued cheques to them and said cheques were encashed.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the 6th respondent hospital did not have permission from the 4th respondent, the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare to provide COVID-19 treatment during the period of petitioners admission and treatment in the hospital viz from 21.07.2020 to 31.07.2020, yet the 6th respondent hospital proceeded and administered COVID-19 treatment to the patients during the period of petitioner’s hospitalization i.e. 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. Though the counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent on 16.02.2023, curiously it is silent and does not mention the date when the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyderabad granted approval to the 6th respondent hospital for COVID-19 treatment. It is specifically contended by the petitioner that as per the Media Bulletin obtained by the petitioner from the 4th respondent website, wherein the entire list of hospital providing COVID-19 treatments were given the 6th respondent hospital was not listed meaning that the respondent hospital did not have permission from the 4th respondent authority to treat COVID-19 patients during the period 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020 when the petitioner himself was hospitalized. 7. The counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 to 11 on 12.03.2023, however, enclosed the copy of letter No. SPL/COVID-19/DPHFW/Pvt/2020, dated 22.07.2020 through which permission had been accorded to the 6th respondent hospital to admit and treat COVIT-19 positive cases. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further specifically contends that a bare perusal of the contents of the letter dated 18.08.2022 vide No.Rc.No.Spl/Covid-19/2022 of the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare filed as material document along with the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent clearly indicates and that there is a clear over writing in the said letter and the date which is mentioned as 22.07.2020 in the letter dated 18.08.2022 of the Director Public Health and Family Welfare had been over written and had been actually changed to 22.07.2020 instead of 22.07.2022 and that though the 6th respondent hospital was not on the list of accorded permission hospitals for the treatment of COVID 19 affected persons as per official media bulletin issued by the good office on Google the 6th respondent hospital however, proceeded and treated the COVID 19 patients during the period when the petitioner was hospitalized i.e. during 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. This Court also finds it surprising that the application of the 6th respondent hospital seeking permission for COVID 19 treatment is dated 22.07.2020 and the permission letter granting permission to the 6th respondent hospital for COVID 19 treatment of the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare is also dated 22.07.2020. 9. This Court also finds it surprising that the application of the 6th respondent hospital seeking permission for COVID 19 treatment is dated 22.07.2020 and the permission letter granting permission to the 6th respondent hospital for COVID 19 treatment of the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare is also dated 22.07.2020. 9. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter of Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.7700/IDSP/2022, dated 22.03.2023 reads as under: “The attention of the District Medical & Health Officer, Ranga Reddy District is invited to the reference 1st and 2nd cited, and it is informed that Evya Multi Speciality Hospital has submitted application dated 22.07.2020 (copy enclosed) to this office and keeping in view of pandemic situation and patient emergency health care system, permission was issued to the said hospital on 22.07.2020 for treating COVID 19 patients. He is also requested to furnish the information to the Government Pleader, Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad so as to enable him to appraise the same before the Hon’ble High Court.” 10. A bare perusal of the material documents filed by the petitioner herein clearly indicates that the petitioner submitted detailed representations dated 01.10.2021 07.10.2021 and 17.11.2021 to the respondents pertaining to initiation of stringent action against the 6th respondent hospital for the treatment of COVID 19 initiated and undertaken by the 6th respondent hospital without valid permission of the competent authority, during the period when the petitioner was hospitalized i.e., during 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020. 11. This Court taking note of two important facts, firstly the fact as borne on record that the application of the 6th respondent hospital seeking permission for COVID-19 treatment is 22.07.2020 and the date when the permission is accorded by the competent authority to the 6th respondent hospital for COVID-19 treatment is also dated 22.07.2020 and secondly, taking note of the fact that without conducting any inspection of the hospital by the authorities concerned, without conducting any proper enquiry relating to the infrastructure of hospital, medical facilities available at the hospital, including the doctors and the staff nurses, whether permission could have been granted for treating COVID-19 patients on the date of application itself i.e. 22.07.2020 by the competent authority, to the 6th respondent hospital, opines that the subject issue needs to be examined in detail by the 1st and 2nd respondent herein, in the interest of justice. This Court is of the firm opinion that the 1st and 2nd respondents should be directed to conduct detailed enquiry with regard to the COVID-19 treatment given by the 6th respondent hospital during the period 22.07.2020 to 31.07.2020, in particular on the issue whether the 6th respondent hospital had a valid permission for proceeding with the COVID-19 treatment during the said period. 12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the contents of the letter of the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.7700/IDSP/2022, dated 22.03.2023 referred to and extracted above the 1st and 2nd respondents herein are directed to examine the contents of the petitioner’s representations dated 01.10.2021, 07.10.2021 and 07.11.2021 by conducting thorough proper and due enquiry in accordance to law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and initiate appropriate necessary action if required against the 6th respondent hospital as per law within a reasonable period based on the final outcome of the said enquiry. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending shall stands closed.