Disposed

Smt. M. S. Sulochana v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2023WP/794/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-action against a hospital for charging exorbitant medical fees during her husband's COVID-19 treatment. Court directed Commissioner to consider representation after giving hospital an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to consider the representation after providing the hospital an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Smt. M. S. Sulochana Vs the State of Karnataka — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:45249 WP No. 794 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 794 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. M. S. SULOCHANA W/O LATE B PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT JEEVITHA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, VINAYAKA BADAVENE CHIKKABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M S NAGARAJA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

¶13

Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE KARNATAKA STATE DISASTER

¶15

MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

¶16

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE COMMISSIONER HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES AROGYA SOUDHA, 1ST CROSS, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023.

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:45249 WP No. 794 of 2022

¶20

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE

¶21

BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶23

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND WELFARE OFFICER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT INDIRANAGARA

¶24

BENGALURU - 560 038.

¶25

THE CHAIRMAN

¶26

SAPTHAGIRI HOSPITAL NO.15, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD NAVY LAYOUT, CHIKKASANDRA CHIKKABANAVARA BENGALURU - 560 090.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, R5 & R6; SMT. M.S. PRATHIMA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. RAVISHANKAR S.S. ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION THE 7TH RESPONDENT IN TERMS OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED:07.08.2021 VIDE ANNX-K, L, M AND N RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.,

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:45249 WP No. 794 of 2022

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Sri. M.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only grievance of the petitioner is nonconsideration of the representation dated 09.08.2021 produced at Annexure-L by which the petitioner had requested the respondent No.3-The Commissioner to take appropriate action against the respondent No.7-Hospital for charging exorbitant medical charges in violation of the Standing Orders and not providing proper medical treatment as per the protocol issued by the Government of Karnataka to the husband of the petitioner.

¶34

The case of the petitioner is that her husband namely Sri. B. Prakash was infected by Covid-19 infection and was admitted for treatment at respondent No.7Hospital. That in terms of notification dated 23.06.2020 produced at Annexure-F issued by the Government of Karnataka and respondent No.7-Hospital was to provide treatment and charge as per the rates provided thereunder.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:45249 WP No. 794 of 2022

¶37

It is further case of the petitioner that the

¶38

respondent No.7-Hospital had charged exorbitantly and issued the bill as per Annexure-D. That the rates charged by the respondent No.7-Hospital is not only contrary to the ceiling limit fixed by the State of Karnataka as per Annexuere-F but also in violation of the rights of the petitioner and her husband. Hence, the petitioner had made the representation seeking necessary action against the respondent No.7-Hospital but no action has been taken in that regard.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner would be satisfied if the directions be issued to the respondent No.3-The Commissioner to consider the representation produced at Annexure-L within time bound manner.

¶40

Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that necessary instructions will be issued to respondent No.3 to consider the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:45249 WP No. 794 of 2022

¶43

representation in accordance with law and pass

¶44

appropriate orders thereon.

¶45

Sri. Ravishankar S.S, learned counsel for the respondent No.7-Hospital submits that respondent No.7Hospital be provided with an opportunity of hearing before

¶46

the respondent No.3- The Commissioner upon the representation made by the petitioner.

¶47

Submission is taken on record.

¶48

In view of the aforesaid factual aspects of the

¶49

matter, petition is disposed off with the direction to the respondent No.3- The Commissioner to consider the representation filed by the petitioner produced at Annexure-L after providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.7-Hospital, including, Calling for objections, if any, and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of response from respondent No.7-Hospital.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:45249 WP No. 794 of 2022

¶52

Since the parties are represented by their counsels they shall appear before the respondent No.3-The Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Services on 10.01.2024 at 3.00 p.m, without any notice.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Smt. M. S. Sulochana v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. S. Sulochana v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr. Mujahid B Makki Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sanjay Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Chetana Manoj Vs Authorized Officer

Smt Vimala @ Akkamma Vs Smt P Pallavi

Sri Muniswamy Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. X Vs State of Karnataka