Rajnandgaon Chinmay Multispeciality Hospital Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

2026:CGHC:27309

NAFR

AVINASH SHARMA

Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.07.03 18:34:36 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 2941 of 2026

¶8

1 - Rajnandgaon Chinmay Multispeciality Hospital Through Director Of The Hospital Namely Shri Dr. Bhuwan Lal Kumre Aged About 69 Years S/o Late Shri Amrit Lal Kumre R/o Mahendra Nagar, Lalbag Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

2 - Health Secretary- Cum Appellate Authority, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Commissioner, Health Services Cum Assistant Chief Executing Officer, State Nodal Agency, Chhattisgarh, Address Fourth Floor, Sector- 19, North Block Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri RK Gupta, Addl AG.

¶15

SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board

¶16

02/07/2026

¶17

Challenge is to the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the Secretary, State of Chattisgarh, Public Health and Family Welfare Department whereby, appeal of the petitioner against order dated 26.11.2025 (Annexure A/6) wherein Petitioner-Hospital has been put under de-empanelment for one year, has been dismissed.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/Empaneled Health Care Provider is

¶19

2

¶20

a multispeciality facility operating under the name Rajnandgaon Chinmay Multispeciality Hospital (hereinafter referred to as EHCP) situated in the District Rajnandgaon. Since its inception the EHCP has been dedicated to serving the community, with a primary focus on providing high-quality healthcare to the socioeconomically deprived sections of society. This commitment to public welfare aligns with the core objectives of the scheme and was a cornerstone of the operations well before the formal empanelment under the Scheme. The said empanelment was made under the scheme floated by Central Government. Scheme floated by the State Government known as Guideline for Empanelment of Hospital under Dr. Khoobchand Baghel Swastha Sahayata Yojna (Annexure P/3). Under the said guidelines Clause No. VI deals with suspension and de-empanelment and gradation of offences/table page No. 18 & 19. Surprise inspection was conducted by the State Level Committee on the basis of the list of triggers marked by National Anti Fraud Unit. On the basis of said inspection show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2025. The petitioner hospital moved a detailed and parawise reply of the show cause notice. The petitioner hospital has specifically replied each and every allegation of the show cause notice. Despite of the specific allegation wise reply and the documents, the order dated 26.11.2025 for deempanelment of the hospital for a period of one year has been passed and even in the said order, the Commissioner Health Service has only recorded that the Commissioner is not satisfied with the explanation/the allegation wise reply submitted by the hospital. If the Commissioner or the competent authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Hospital than each explanation offered by the hospital ought to have been dealt with

¶21

3

¶22

separately. It is apparent on the face of order dated 26.11.2025 that, there is no whisper in the entire order of punishment, which shows that the explanation offered was considered and dealt with by the competent authority while passing the order of punishment. The competent authority while passing the order dated 26.11.2025 has only recorded the findings that "उपरो�क्त बिं��दुओं के� सं � �ध में� आपके� द्वा�रो� दि�या� गया� स्पष्टी�केरोण संमें�ध�नके�रोके तथा� स्वी�के�रो-या�ग्या नहीं% हीं&।" these findings cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. The competent authority who has been conferred with the jurisdiction to impose the punishment is virtually exercising the quasi judicial powers and is a statutory authority. The order of punishment dated 26.11.2025 has been challenged by filing the appeal under Clause 8(d) of the Guidelines and even in the appeal the specific grounds have been raised, but unfortunately the appellate authority also, without application of mind and with closed mind has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of competent authority, whereby the order of de-empanelment for a period of one year was passed. The appellate authority has also failed to deal with each of the point raised in the memo of appeal and the grounds made thereunder and has passed the order of dismissal in mechanical manner. The appellate authority was sitting over the matter and the order of de-empanelment was running against hospital, compelling the petitioner who had no other option, but to approach this Court.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing order of deempanelment of the hospital for a period of one year, the authority has not expressed any anomaly exercised by the Hospital on the basis of which such an order has been passed, in the said order, the Commissioner Health

¶24

4

¶25

Service has only recorded that the Commissioner is not satisfied with the explanation/the allegation wise reply submitted by the hospital. Further, even the appellate authority without application of mind and with closed mind has

¶26

dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of competent authority.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State submits that the order dated 26.11.2025 has been passed by Commissioner Health Service is in accordance with law, which as affirmed by the Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department, as such, there is no merit in this case.

¶28

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and upon careful perusal of the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record, it transpires that the petitioner-hospital, which was duly empanelled under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme for providing healthcare services to eligible beneficiaries, came to be de-empanelled for a period of one year by order dated 26.11.2025. The record reveals that the inspection team had indeed recorded certain deficiencies and adverse observations against the petitioner. However, a careful examination of the inspection report and the material relied upon indicates that the findings are general in nature and do not contain detailed reasons or specific particulars sufficient to justify the extreme measure of de-empanelment for such a prolonged period. Furthermore, it is an admitted position that, as on the date of consideration of the present petition, approximately seven months of the de-empanelment period have already elapsed. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the Ayushman Bharat Scheme is a beneficial welfare scheme intended to secure quality healthcare for economically weaker sections of society. The continued exclusion of a healthcare institution from the panel not only affects

¶29

5

¶30

the petitioner but may also adversely impact beneficiaries residing in the surrounding area who depend upon such empanelled hospitals for medical treatment. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the principles of proportionality, fairness and the larger public interest sought to be served by the Scheme, this Court is of the considered opinion that interference with the impugned action is warranted.

¶31

Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 deserves to be modified. Accordingly, considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that a substantial part of the original period of de-empanelment has already been undergone, this relief is made subject to the condition that the petitioner shall, within an appropriate period, submit a detailed

¶32

representation/application before the competent authorities with respect to the remaining period of five months of de-empanelment. Upon receipt of such application, the competent authority shall examine the same objectively, independently and strictly in accordance with law, after taking into consideration the petitioner's explanation, the inspection material available on record, the corrective measures, if any, undertaken by the petitioner, and the larger objective of ensuring uninterrupted medical services under the Ayushman Bharat Scheme. The said exercise be completed within 30 days, subject to petitioner’s filing appropriate application along with copy of this order within 7 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶33

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ Petition is allowed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

( Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge

¶36

Avinash

Rajnandgaon Chinmay Multispeciality Hospital v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajnandgaon Chinmay Multispeciality Hospital v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumitra Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khoman Singh Vs Dhansai

Adimjati Seva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Gotia, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prem Machhuva Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Beladula Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devendra Khanna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Biselal Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh