Disposed

Dr. Nirmala Ramesh Vaze v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC11 Jan 2023PIL/103/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL petitioned that Medical Superintendents of government mental hospitals must be Psychiatrists under the 2017 Mental Healthcare Act. The Court found no statutory requirement but noted the State's affidavit stating a Psychiatrist is attached to the post and works in collaboration.

What did the court decide?

No direction to appoint a Psychiatrist as Superintendent; arrangement of attachment continued.

Dr. Nirmala Ramesh Vaze Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 52-PIL-103-2018.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 103 OF 2018

¶4

(Dr. Nirmala Ramesh Vaze Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Ms. S.S. Singalkar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Shri S.A. Ashirgade, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents/ State.

¶8

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. D ATE : JANUARY 11, 2023

¶9

The petitioner – a practicing Gynecologist has preferred this Public Interest Litigation praying that in four Government Regional Mental Hospitals – at Nagpur, Pune, Thane and Ratnagiri, the post of Medical Superintendent ought to be manned by Psychiatrist. According to the petitioner, presence of Psychiatrist as Medical Superintendent would have its own positive effect in treatment of patients taking treatment at the Mental Hospitals. Instances have been pointed out where a Pediatrician was appointed as Medical Superintendent thus frustrating the object behind the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (for short “the Act of 2017”). In that backdrop, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint Psychiatrist as Superintendent at the Government Regional Mental Hospitals run by it.

¶10

After notice was issued in the present proceedings, an affidavit has been filed by the respondents in which it has been stated that the post of Medical Superintendent requires the incumbent to perform various duties such as health administration, purchase and procurement of medicines and material, etc. Hence, a Psychiatrist could be attached to the post of Medical Superintendent to enable both of them to function in collaboration. In paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, the duties of the Medical Superintendent have been indicated. It has been further stated that with the help of a Psychiatrist, he takes round and observes admitted patients.

¶11

We find that under the Act of 2017 and the Rules framed thereunder, there is no statutory requirement that Medical Superintendent should be a

¶12

2 52-PIL-103-2018.odt

¶13

Psychiatrist. We however note the stand taken in the aforesaid affidavit that in Mental Hospitals, Psychiatrist is attached to the Medical Superintendent and both of them together work in collaboration for the well being and betterment of the patients. By observing that such arrangement should continue in future, we find that the purpose of filing the present proceedings has been served.

¶14

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶15

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)

¶16

SUMIT

¶17

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:12.01.2023 17:52

Dr. Nirmala Ramesh Vaze v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Nirmala Ramesh Vaze v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Gajanan Telange and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Dnyaneshwar Vitthal Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rashtriya Shramik Aghadi Thru President Mr. Yashwant Anandrao Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ajay Madhusudan Marathe Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Joint Secretary Dept. of Home Affairs and Anr.

Shirish B Patel and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 10 Ohters

Saji Lyakaramuruyil Pappachan Vs Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Hanuman Krushna Patil and Ors. Vs the District Collector , Thane and Ors.

Suresh S/O Munaji Wanjari Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Jaya Nilkanth Nerkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Rajapeth Ps Amravati and Another

Shri Ramdulal Anilbaran Mandal Vs the Union of India Mumbai through General Manager and Others

Digambar Okate and 2 Others Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Channi Tq.Patur Dist.Akola and Another

Smt. Anuradha Pramod Kale @ Anuradha Ashokrao Sagane Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Finance Dept., State of Maha., Mumbai and Others

Shyam S/O Kisanrao Mehetre Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Principal Secretary (State Excise), Mumbai and Anr.