Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:19333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2873 of 2020 1 - Padmesh Kumar Sahu S/o Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Belgaon P.S. Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (Cg), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar District- Chhattisgarh : Raipur(Cg), Raipur, District 2 - The Director Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar District- Chhattisgarh Raipur Raipur, District (Cg), : 3 - National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary, National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110077 Delhi India, District Delhi, New : 4 - The Collector Cum Supervisory Authority Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District-Rajnandgaon (Cg), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District-Rajnandgaon (Cg), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon District- Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon Rajnandgaon, District (Cg), :
Legal Reasoning
7 - Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Through Its Partner Dr. Raghunandan Sharma, S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, Occupation- Doctor Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon (Cg), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh -2- 8 - Dr. Chaman Nishad Occupation Doctor Cum Director Of Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon(Cg), District : Chhattisgarh Rajnandgaon, 9 - Dr. Prateek Kaushik Doctor Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur Distt. Chhattisgarh : Rajnandgaon(Cg), Rajnandgaon, District 10 - Dr. Archana Rangari Doctor Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (Cg), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 11 - Dr. Suresh Patre Doctor, Shukla Multi Specialty Basantpur, District Chhattisgarh : Rajnandgaon(Cg), Rajnandgaon, District 12 - Dr. Archana Rangari Doctor, Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh District-Rajnandgaon(Cg), District : ---- Respondents For Petitioner For Respondent/State For Respondents No.7 to 11 : : : Shri Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Shri R.S. Marhas, Addl. A.G. alongwith Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate alongwith Ms. Shweta Kumari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 1 to 6 and 13 to pass an final order with regard to the cancellation of medical license of the respondent no. 7 to 12 for medical negligence as well as 3 non-fulfilling the requisite criteria. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 1 to 6 to closed the hospital of respondent no. 7. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 1 to 6 to take legal action for medical negligence and deficiency in service done by the respondent no. 7 to 12. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the direct the respondent authorities, particularly the respondent no. 1 to 6 to grant proper and adequate compensation in favour of petitioner, against the respondent no. 7 to 12 for medical negligence and deficiency in service as Hon'ble Court deem fit for loss of petitioner's brother due to medical negligence of respondent no. 7 to 12. 10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which deem fits by this Hon'ble Court. 10.6 Cost of the petition also given to him.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the brother of the petitioner, namely Pulkesh Kumar Sahu met with an accident on 26.9.2019 and was taken to the hospital of respondent No.7, where he was admitted. It was initially informed that the injuries sustained by the patient were of a normal nature. It is further alleged that although the patient was admitted to the hospital at -4- about 9:00 pm, the doctors and medical staff were not available, and proper medical support was not provided. On 27.9.2019, at about 9:30 am, respondent No.8 attended the patient and shortly thereafter, it was informed that he had died. He would further submit that the petitioner along with the other villagers lodged a written complaint before respondents No.4 to 6. Respondent No.5 conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Private Secretary to the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. He would also submit that an FIR No.475 of 2019 was registered against respondents No.7 to 12 for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 420, 34 of IPC. In enquiry, respondent No.5 found 31 deficiencies in the hospital. He would contend that despite there being serious allegations against the hospital run by respondent No.7 and an order for cancellation of its registration, respondent No.7 is still running the hospital. He would further contend that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to take necessary action and to grant just and proper compensation to the petitioner for medical negligence. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would submit that against the order dated 3.12.2019, respondent No.7 preferred WPC No. 4511 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 6.12.2019 granting liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority and a protective order was passed in 5 favour of respondent No.7. They would contend that respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same has been decided in favour of respondent No.7. They would further submit that the Director of Health Services held that the application for renewal of the license is a separate matter from the death of a person during treatment. Pursuant to this, the authority concerned directed the Competent Authority to take appropriate steps with regard to the renewal of the license of the hospital of respondent No.7 vide order dated 2.3.2020. It is contended that the order dated 2.3.2020 has not been challenged by the petitioner. They would also submit that the deceased had sustained a serious head injury, which was the cause of death, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. An order was passed on 3.12.2019 directing the closure of the hospital run by respondents No.7 & 8. The order was challenged by filing WPC No. 4511 of 2019 before the High Court. A protective order was passed in favour of respondent No.7 with the liberty to file an appeal. In the appeal, the Director of Health Services vide order dated 2.3.2020 directed the Competent Authority to take appropriate steps for the renewal of the hospital’s license and consequently, the license of respondent No.7 was renewed. The -6- order dated 2.3.2020 has not been challenged by the petitioner. 6. With regard to compensation, there is a finding that the cause of death was a head injury. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to claim the compensation in accordance with the law. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference, consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge