Aditya Multi Care Hospital Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.15658 OF 2024

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned proceedings No.Dr.YS AHCT/SDC/De Empanel/03/2023 dated 26.07.2023 against the petitioner hospital as illegal, arbitrary, against the Rules of Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002 and consequently direct Respondent No.2 to empanel the 1^st petitioner Hospital in the Dr. YSR Argoyasri Health Care Trust.

¶4

The brief facts of the case are that the first petitioner is the hospital and the second petitioner is its Managing Director. The hospital was registered under the provisions of the Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002. Upon consideration of the eligibility, suitability, and application of the petitioner hospital, the second respondent empanelled the hospital to render all medical notified services under the Dr. YSR Arogyasri Health Care Trust, which was constituted pursuant to a public health policy under a public welfare

¶5

NV,J W.P.No.15658 of 2024

¶6

2

¶7

scheme been renamed as the Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust. Subsequently, the second respondent issued proceedings dated 26.07.2023 de-paneling the first petitioner hospital by withdrawing the medical services under the Dr. YSR Arogyasri Health Care Trust on the ground that the hospital did not provide the equipment and other requirements in accordance with the empanelment guidelines, particularly Guideline No. 6.2 of the said Guidelines. After being de-panelled from the scheme, the petitioner hospital obtained the necessary permissions and complied with the requirements which had been pointed out by the second respondent in the impugned proceedings. Thereafter, the first petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.04.2024 seeking either fresh empanelment or re-empanelment to render services under the Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust. However, despite the submission of the said representation on 09.04.2024, the second respondent has neither considered the representation positively and permitted the petitioner nor communicated any decision thereon to the petitioner for the reasons best known to it. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶8

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

¶9

that the action of the second respondent in not considering the representation dated 09.04.2024 submitted by the first petitioner

¶10

NV,J W.P.No.15658 of 2024

¶11

3

¶12

seeking either fresh empanelment or re-empanelment under the Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the petitioner hospital has complied with the requirements and obtained the necessary permissions, which were earlier found lacking with the petitioner by the respondents. In spite of the same, the second respondent has failed to consider the request of the petitioner for re-empanelment. The learned counsel submits that the inaction on the part of the second respondent in neither considering nor responding to the representation amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the public authorities. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2024 and pass appropriate orders for empanelment of the petitioner hospital under the Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust, within a reasonable time frame.

¶13

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health submits that since the petitioner is stated to have submitted a representation dated 09.04.2024 through e-mail as well as by postal service. It is also submitted that the second respondent will consider the said representation in accordance with the guidelines governing for the inclusion with Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶14

NV,J W.P.No.15658 of 2024

¶15

4

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health and perused the material available on record.

¶17

In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the second respondent would consider the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2024, this Court deems it appropriate without going into merits of the case, to direct the second respondent to consider the said representation, if not already considered, in accordance with the guidelines governing the Dr. NTR Vaidya Seva Trust and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18