Shyama Surgical Sansthan and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC2 Jul 2026CWJC/7671/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC 7671 of 2016; Patna High Court; Shyama Surgical Sansthan v. State of Bihar; RSBY / Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana; B.P.L. patients hospitalization and treatment charges Rs. 7,54,500/-; HDFC ERGO General Insurance; Bihar State Labour and Welfare Committee; disposed in terms of Dr. Nita Jha, C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 2020, order dated 06.09.2022; alternative remedy; res integra; no adjudication on merits; single Judge G. Anupama Chakravarthy; decision dated 02-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

No monetary relief; the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the Division Bench order dated 06.09.2022 in C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 2020 (Dr. Nita Jha), under whose terms the dispute was left unadjudicated on merits with liberty to pursue alternative remedies; any interlocutory application also stands disposed of. ¶¶32

Shyama Surgical Sansthan and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7671 of 2016

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Shyama Surgical Sansthan through its Managing Director, Smt. Renu Mishra, 5 G.M. Road Darbhanga

¶4

Smt. Renu Mishra, Managing, Director, Shyama Surgical Sansthan, 5 G.M. Road, Darbhanga.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Labours Welfare Committee, Vikash Bhawan, Patna (Bihar)

¶8

The Principal Secretary Cum- Chairman Labour and Welfare Committee, Vikash Bhawan, Patna Bihar.

¶9

The Executive Director Incharge R.B.S.Y. Rastriya Swasthya Bima Yojana Bihar State Labour and welfare Committee, Patna

¶10

The HDFC ERGO, General Insurance Company limited, Registered office at Ist Floor, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation, H.T. Prakash Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400020

¶11

The State Head, HDFC ERGO, General Isurance Company Limited, Registered office at Uma Complex, Freser Road, Patna (Bihar)

¶12

... ... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Chandra Thakur For the State : Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to PG 10 For Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: M/s Kamleshwar Padney, Mayuri Durgesh Kumar Singh Abhijeet Kumar Singh Anjana Sinha, Advocates

¶14

======================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

Date : 02-07-2026

¶18

The petitioners have filed the instant

¶19

application for the following reliefs:

¶20

“ For direction to the Respondent Nos- 4 and 5 to pay the hospitalization and treatment charges

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.7671 of 2016 dt.02-07-2026 2/4

¶22

amounting Rs. 7,54,500/- of the B.P.L. patients for which the petitioners are entitled to get as they treated and operated the patients under B.P.L. Category under R.S.B.Y. Scheme on the instruction of Respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

¶23

At the very outset, the Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is no longer res integra . It is contended that the issue stands squarely covered by the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 455 of 2020 (Dr. Nita Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors) , wherein an identical issue was considered and adjudicated. The Learned counsel for the parties, therefore, submit that in view of the aforesaid judgment, the present writ petition may also be disposed of, in terms of the order dated 06.09.2022.

¶24

In Dr. Nita Jha (supra) this Court has held as follows:

¶25

“After the matter was heard

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.7671 of 2016 dt.02-07-2026 3/4

¶27

for some time, finding the Court not to be in favour with the submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner, more so in view of the disputed question of fact, fairly states that petitioner be permitted to take recourse to such equally, efficacious alternative remedies as are available in accordance with law.

¶28

Permission granted.

¶29

We clarify that we have not adjudicated the dispute on merits. All questions of fact and law are left open to be agitated and adjudicated before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings.

¶30

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

¶31