M/S M.R. HOSPITAL DULY Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s M.R. Hospital is a multi-speciality hospital established in the year 1990 to provide a broad range of medical services to serve the public health care needs like cardiac surgeries/coronary bypass, valve replacement, congenital heart surgery and thoracoscopic surgery. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner hospital also obtained licence from the Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, being the State Appropriate Authority under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act 1994 (Central Act 42 of 1994), hereinafter referred to as "the Act", to perform the organ transplantations like kidney, liver transplantations etc., vide Ref.No.85942/E7/4/1995 dtd. 1/9/96. The said licence also was periodically renewed, as per Rule 25 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, upto 31/8/2016. Explaining further, the learned senior counsel submitted that for the purpose of undertaking renal transplantation, the hospital will have to see whether the first degree relatives are found fit or unfit. If the first degree relatives are found unfit, they are advised to bring the second degree relatives or friends. If they are found medically fit, the petitioner hospital used to collect the necessary documents as required under Form-11 of the said rules from both the donor and the recipient and refer the same to the second respondent for necessary approval, who will follow the procedure in accordance with Rules 18 and 19 and finally take a decision under Rule 23. When the petitioner hospital was strictly following the procedures contemplated under the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, they have successfully performed 192 kidney transplantations with a good success rate.

(2.) When the matter stood as above, two of their patients, namely, Mrs.N.Chandra, W/o N.Natarajan (recipient) and the donor Mrs.J.Saraswathi, W/o Jayakumar and Mrs.B.Jayamani, W/o Mr.Boopathy (recipient) and the donor Mrs.M.Devi, W/o Mr.Mani came forward with the relevant documents stating that they are second degree relative donors. Since their documents were duly signed and attested by one of the relevant authorities, namely, Notary Public, after conducting various tests and on examination of the medical fitness, they were forwarded for clearance by the second respondent. Surprisingly, the order dtd. 27/1/2014 impugned in W.P.No.27141 of 2014 was passed suspending the registration granted to the petitioner for perfoming the renal transplantation without even issuing notice whatsoever. Assailing the impugned order of temporary suspension of the registration closing one of the units viz., renal transplantation in the petitioner hospital, it is contended that when a First Information Report was registered pm 24/1/2014 against others accusing them for violation of the various provisions under the Act, no mention has been made against the petitioner hospital in the said First Information Act. Now the case is also pending in FIR No.76 of 2014 for the offence under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC and when there is no allegation of possible involvement of the petitioner hospital, their doctors and staff, the impugned order of temporary suspension cannot be passed on 27/1/2014, as a result, for the past 2 1/2 years, the petitioner hospital is not able to open the renal transplantation unit, which causes grave prejudice to the petitioner, since there is no show cause notice issued against the hospital. Moreover, when the First Information Report No.76 of 2014 has been already registered for the offence under Ss. 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC on 24/1/2014, there is no involvement made by the petitioner hospital. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed not only on the ground that no notice was issued against the petitioner before passing the impugned order, but also on the ground that there is no implication made against the petitioner for prosecuting them on the basis of the First Information Report, he pleaded.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents fairly submitted that in the First Information Report dtd. 24/1/2014 bearing No.76 of 2014 for the offence under Ss. 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, the name of the hospital has not been shown. The First Information Report shows only the names of the donors and the recipients, therefore, the role of M/s M.R.Hospital could not be brought on light.