Allowed

The Nilambur Panchayath Vanitha Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. NO.M.555 v. the Superintendent, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital

Kerala HC13 Jul 2015WP(C)/6192/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition where a co-operative society sought release of withheld payments for medicines supplied under a government health scheme. The court directed the hospital to release dues excluding only the value of medicines from a specific pharmaceutical company under investigation for alleged malpractice.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent hospital to release the amounts due to the petitioner from August 2012 to June 2013, less only those amounts pertaining to Lactum SB injection or other banned medicines of Lene

The Nilambur Panchayath Vanitha Sahakarana Sangham Ltd… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2015/22ND ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6192 of 2014 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

THE NILAMBUR PANCHAYATH VANITHA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD NO.M.555

¶8

NILAMBUR.P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶9

THE SECRETARY

¶10

NILAMBUR PANCHAYATH VANITHA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM LTD NO.M.555 NILAMBUR.P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN

¶12

SMT.NIMA JACOB SRI.K.C.ANTONY MATHEW

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT GOVERNMENT TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, NILAMBUR NILAMBUR.P.O.-679 329, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER MANJERI-676 121, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(NODAL OFFICER) COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCCE AGENCY OF KERALA(CHIAK) 7TH FLOOR, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶17

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.

¶18

R1 to R3 BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMED ALI, SC, CHIAK R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.MOHAMMED SAVED

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-072015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 6192 of 2014 (Y)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶23

P1TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE INVITING QUOTATIONS DATED 27.06.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

P2TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION AND THE UNDETAKING GIVEN BY THE SOCIETY.

¶25

P3TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERSTANDING SIGNED BETWEEN THE 2ND PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.08.2012.

¶26

P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2013.

¶27

P5TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶28

P6TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 12.7.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER KOZHIKODE UNDER RTI ACT.

¶29

P7TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER DATED 17.7.2013 UNDER THE RTI ACT.

¶30

P8TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2013.

¶31

P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2013.

¶32

P10TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.10.2013 IN W.P[C]NO.24474/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶33

P11TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶34

P12TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ASWERS GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶36

EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT AND AGREEMENT. EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C1-4676/2013 DATED 9.12.2013. EXHIBIT R2(D): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C1-4353/2013 DATED 06.12.2013.

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN,J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.6192 of 2014 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2015

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

The 1^st petitioner is a co-operative society which had entered into Ext.P3 agreement with the Superintendent of the Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Nilambur, the 1^st respondent herein, for supply of medicines under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bhima Yojana (RSBY) Scheme providing for health insurance to needy citizens. The 3^rd respondent is the Nodal Agency for implementing the Scheme. It is alleged that though medicines were supplied by the petitioner to the 1^st respondent in pursuance to the agreement, amounts due to the Society from August 2012 to June 2013 were withheld by the 1^st respondent. The petitioner had approached the 1^st respondent by filing Ext.P4 representation stating that it proposed to discontinue the supply of the medicines since the amounts due under bills raised by it had not been met. By Ext.P5 reply dated 12.07.2013 the 1^st respondent informed the petitioner that amounts due under the bills except from August 2012 to June 2013 would be paid to the

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C).No.6192 of 2014

¶45

petitioner at the earliest. The petitioner was requested to continue supply of medicines without interruption.

¶46

It is the case of the petitioner that though there were allegations regarding the supply of certain medicines by a pharmaceutical company by name 'Lenec Pharmaceuticals' by changing the labels of the medicines, the petitioner was in no way involved with the alleged offences. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7 reply given under the Right to Information Act and states that the Society or its employees are in no way involved in the alleged malpractices. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.24474 of 2013 and by Ext.P10 judgment dated 07.10.2013, the 1^st respondent was directed to consider Ext.P9 representation preferred by the petitioner and pass orders thereon after hearing the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P11 order has been passed by the 1^st respondent on 03.01.2014, stating that the amounts covered by bills for medicines supplied from August 2012 to June 2013 which amounted to Rs.76,32,680/- has been paid to the petitioner and

¶47

W.P.(C).No.6192 of 2014

¶48

¶49

an amount of Rs.20,99,209.69 has been withheld. It is further stated that the amounts have been withheld because the medicine “Lactum SB injection” has been included in the bills. An enquiry is going on with regard to the supply of that medicine by Lenec Pharmaceuticals and the bill which included the medicines supplied by this company have been withheld and it is decided that those bills will be cleared only after the connected cases are disposed of. However the decision No.4 of the Hospital Management Committee relied on in Ext.P11 is extracted below:-

¶50

“ÄàøáÎÞÈ¢ ÈOV_4 §BæÈ ÉùÏáKá.å¦V.®Øí.Ìß.èÕ Îáç¶È ÕßÄøÃ¢ æºÏñ ÎøáKáµ{áæ¿ ÕßÜ ÌtæMGåÈàÄß ØíçxÞùáµ {ßçÜAí ÈWµáKÄáÎÞÏß ÌtæMG ºVºîÏßW ÕßÕÞÆ ÎøáKí µOÈßÏáæ¿ ÎøáKáµZ ÄÞWAÞÜßµÎÞÏß ²ÝßÕÞAß ÌÞAßÏáU ÄáµÏíAáU æºAí ÈWµáÕÞX ÄàøáÎÞÈßºîá ²ÝßÕÞAæMG ÕßÕÞÆ ÎøáKí µOÈßÏáæ¿ ÎøáKáµ{áæ¿åÕßÜ ÈWµáKÄí ÉßKà¿í §Äá Ø¢Ìtßºî ¥çÈb×ÃBZ ¥ÕØÞÈßMßºîí ÌtæMGÕøßW ÈßKá¢ dÉçÄcµ ¥ÈáÎÄß ÜÍcÎÞAß ÎÞdÄ¢ ÈWµßÏÞW ÎÄß ®Ká¢ HMC çÏÞ·¢ ÄàøáÎÞÈßºîá. “

¶51

It is clear from the above that the decision taken by the Hospital Management Committee is not to withhold all the bills which contains the medicines in question but only to withhold the cost of the medicines of the company involved in the

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C).No.6192 of 2014

¶54

vigilance case. That is the gist of the decision extracted in the order.

¶55

Heard Sri.P.Samsudin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and Sri.Ashik K Mohamed Ali, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶56

Having gone through the pleadings and the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the vigilance case allegedly pending with regard to the supply of medicines is with regard to the medicines supplied by 'Lenac Pharmaceuticals', particularly with respect to one brand, which apparently has been supplied by the petitioner society also. It is seen that an amount of Rs.20,99,209/- has been withheld from the bills due to the society by the 1^st respondent. From a reading of paragraph 3 of Ext.P11 order issued by the 1^st respondent, it is clear that all the bills containing the medicine in question have been withheld by the 1^st respondent. But going by the decision extracted in the order itself, what has been decided is only to retain payments with regard to the medicines of that particular pharmaceutical

¶57

W.P.(C).No.6192 of 2014

¶58

¶59

company which is pending in a vigilance enquiry. Going by Ext.P7, it is clear that complicity of the petitioner or its employees is also not alleged as at present.

¶60

In any view of the matter, since the dispute is with regard to the payment in respect of medicines of the specified company only, I am of the opinion that the bills retained by the 1^st respondent allegedly in a bank deposit can be released to the petitioner after retaining those bills of Lenac Pharmaceuticals specified in paragraph 3 of Ext.P11 alone. The retention of the entire amounts covered by bills containing those medicines will work out injustice and undue hardship to the first respondent which is a Co-operative Society.

¶61

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to release the amounts due under the bills raised by the petitioner Society from August 2012 to June 2013 less amounts included in those bills towards “Lactum SB injection” or other banned medicines of Lenec Pharmaceuticals. The above amounts shall be computed and released to the petitioner society within a period of two months

¶62

W.P.(C).No.6192 of 2014

¶63

¶64

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also provide a computation showing the amounts due under this order. The balance amount involving the medicines involved in the enquiry need be paid only after finalisation of the cases pending in the matter.

¶65

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶66

The Nilambur Panchayath Vanitha Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. NO.M.555 v. the Superintendent, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Nilambur Panchayath Vanitha Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. NO.M.555 v. the Superintendent, Government Taluk Head Quarters Hospital

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

The Board of Directors of the Melattur Vs the Asst.Registrar (General)

R.Sugunan Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar K Vs Registrar of Co-Op.Societies

K.K.Prakasan Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Nedumangad Municipality Vs Mafida Sajad

Thahir Kallat Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited