respondent without any notice and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner hospital especially when the impugned order is attached with a stigma. While passing the impugned order, the first respondent has simply relied on the report submitted by the third respondent and such report has also not been served on the petitioner. When an adverse report has been sent to the first respondent by the third respondent, it is incumbent on the part of the first respondent to serve a copy of the same to the petitioner and to seek for further explanation. Such a course of action has not been done by the first respondent before passing the impugned order and it is in violation of principles of natural justice. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would further contend that as per Clause 26 of the guidelines incorporated in the new Health Insurance Scheme, 2011, the procedure for redressal of grievance is contemplated, as per which, any complaint made by any of the beneficiaries of the scheme relating to difficulty in availing treatment, non-availability of specified facilities, bogus availing of treatment etc., shall be sent to the District Collector, Deputy Director of Health Services and Joint Director of Medical and Public Health Service for necessary action or to the Grievance Cell established at Tamilnadu Health Systems Project. Such complaints, if any, received shall be placed for a decision before the District Monitoring and Grievance Committee consisting of District Collector, Dean/Medical Superintendent of the Medical College concerned, Joint Director of Medical and Rural Health Services Department, Deputy Director of Health Services and representative of the Public Sector Insurance Company as members at the District Level. If any decision is taken by the committee and if any one is aggrieved by such decision, an appeal can be preferred before the State Monitoring and Grievance Committee consisting of Project Director of Tamil Nadu Health Systems Society as Chairperson and other members. However, none of the procedures as contemplated in the new Insurance Scheme with respect to redressal of grievance has been complied with and consequently, the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set aside. Lastly, it is stated by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that even in the impugned order, reference has been made with respect to withdrawal of the complaint given by three complainants, however, in so far as the complaint given by three persons alone, the impugned order has been passed. Such complaints were never referred to the committee as contemplated under clause Clause 26 of the guidelines incorporated in the new Health Insurance Scheme, 2011 under the caption procedure for redressal of grievance, In such circumstances, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent without jurisdiction and therefore he prayed for setting aside the impugned order of the first respondent.
