Allowed

Laxmi Narayana Hospital v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2024WPC/4966/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a proprietorship hospital, challenged its sealing for non-renewal of licence despite having applied for renewal. Bench observed that sealing lacks authority under applicable Acts/Rules. Court quashed sealing order and ordered unsealing within two days, leaving respondent liberty to act if law provides authority to operate without licence. Petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Seal Band Panchnama dated 25.5.2024 quashed; respondent ordered to unseal hospital within 2 days.

Laxmi Narayana Hospital Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Medical Negligence | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:48773

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 4966 of 2024

¶6

Laxmi Narayana Hospital Chhura, Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh, A Proprietorship Firm Through Its Proprietor Namely Shri Jyoti Narayan Dubey S/o Bhuwan Prasad Dubey, Aged Near About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Village - Chhura, Post - Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Director, Health Services, Directorate Sector 19, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Collector, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

5 - Nodal Officer, Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

6 - Station House Officer, P.S. Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel and Mr. Anshul Tiwari, counsel For State/Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. Adv. General and Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer.

¶17

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

11/12/2024

¶20

With the consent of counsel for the parties, heard the matter finally.

¶21

¶22

Facts of the case, in brief, are that, licence was issued to the petitioner/hospital by respondent authorities for a period of 5 years from 23.10.2018 to 22.10.2023. Prior to expiry of licence, on 09.8.2023, petitioner applied for renewal of licence. Inspection was also got done by the authorities, but licence has not been renewed till date. On 11.4.2024, one patient namely; Gendu Bai Dhruw was admitted in the hospital and she underwent surgery to remove her uterus on 12.4.2024, thereafter, after providing her all treatments, she was discharged on 20.4.2024. Subsequently, she died on 10.5.2024 in Mekahara Hospital, Raipur (CG). On this count, in pursuance of alleged order dated 22.5.2024 passed by respondent No.4/Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (CG), petitioner/hospital was sealed by team of medical officer along with police on 25.5.2024,. Notice (Annexure-P/6) was issued to the petitioner/hospital on 23.5.2024, which was replied vide Annexure-P/8 in detail, subsequently, respondent No.4 also issued notice (AnnexureP/9) dated 29.5.2024 to Dr. Narendra Narsing, who operated the aforesaid patient, also submitted detailed reply, but the same has not been considered yet, despite that, hospital has been kept in sealing till date, hence, petitioner has filed instant petition for unsealing of the hospital.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that hospital has been sealed only because licence has not been renewed, whereas, petitioner has already applied for renewal of the licence of hospital by following all formalities. He would further submit that the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Niyam, 2013 (henceforth referred as ‘Niyam, 2013’) or the

¶24

¶25

Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010 (henceforth referred as ‘Adhiniyam, 2010’) does not provide any provision for sealing of hospital, despite that, vide Annexure-P/1, respondent authorities have sealed the hospital on 25.5.2024 and more than 7 months have been passed till date. Therefore, he prayed that relief, as sought for, may be granted to the petitioner.

¶26

Learned State counsel has filed reply. Learned Addl. Adv. General referring to the reply would submit that, as per Rule 12 of the Niyam, 2013, the petitioner ought to have applied for renewal of licence at least three months before the date of expiry of its licence, but he filed renewal application about two months prior to the date of expiry of its licence. He further submitted that licence of the petitioner has not been renewed till date and it is pending consideration. It is further submitted that since licence has not been renewed, therefore, its pendency does not give authority to petitioner to run the hospital after expiry of terms of licence. He further submitted that since licence has not been renewed, therefore, the premises has been sealed. He further submitted that patient-Gendu Bai Dhruw died due to negligence of the petitioner/hospital while operating her and licence period of petitioner had already been lapsed on the date of treatment of patient, therefore, premises of petitioner/hospital has been sealed. However, during the course of submission, learned Addl. Adv. General fairly submitted that there is no provision under the Niyam, 2013 or the Adhiniyam, 2010 for sealing the hospital. He further submitted that if unsealing order is passed by the Court, then it may be observed that, it does not give right to the petitioner to run the hospital without renewal of the licence.

¶27

¶28

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

Vide Annexure-P/1 i.e. ‘Seal Band Panchnama’, hospital of the petitioner has been sealed on 25.5.2024 in the light of order dated 22.5.2024 passed by respondent No.4, but that order has not been annexed along with reply filed by State/respondents. However, it was not contended by learned Addl. Adv. General that the Adhiniyam, 2010 or the Niyam, 2013 provides provision for sealing the hospital, despite that, hospital of petitioner has been sealed, which ought not have been done by the authorities, because if any act or rules does not provide any such authority, then such act must not be done. On the basis of this fact alone, this petition is allowed and Annexure-P/1 i.e. ‘Seal Band Panchnama’ dated 25.5.2024 is quashed and it is ordered that petitioner/hospital be unsealed, within a period of two days from today. However, liberty is left with the respondent authorities to proceed in accordance with law in respect of running of the hospital without renewal of the licence, if law provides any authority in this regard.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶33

Rukhsar

Laxmi Narayana Hospital v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Narayana Hospital v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pooja Verma Vs Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board

Bhupendra Singh Mehra Vs Union of India

Phaleshwar Kumar Vs Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur

Navjeet Singh Tuteja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sumitra Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mahpara Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh