SRI KRISHNA NURSING HOME Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the Writ Affidavit filed, petitioner Nursing Home is established by the deponent Dr. K. Aravinda Sagar, who claims himself to be a qualified MBBS Doctor with Post Graduation Degree in M.S. (General Surgery). As per the Writ Affidavit petitioner was granted Certificate of Registration of Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishments by the 3rd respondent, vide Certificate dated 06.03.2012 and the same is valid upto 05.03.2017. Petitioner was issued with a Notice on 16.08.2017 alleging that on the 2nd respondent's inspection of the petitioner's hospital on 11.08.2017 at 7 p.m., he found that one illegal abortion placed in Labour Room with the medicine administered on patient by name Smt. Rathlavath Devi W/o Nariya, resident of Natelli Tanda. As the abortion that is to be conducted is illegal and the establishment not having renewal of the hospital registration certificate, petitioner was show caused to submit his explanation for the above lapses, Why action should not be taken in accordance with the rules? Petitioner submitted explanation on 21.08.2017 admitting the presence of the patient viz., Ratlavath Devi, 28 years W/o Ratlavath Naria, resident of Natelli Thanda and admission of the said patient on 11.08.2017 at about 3 p.m. complaining of the decreased fatal movements since night and spotting since morning. The scan report suggested IUD of foetus and after examination by Dr. Spandana and after explaining the risks involved, the said patient was advised to go to higher centre for further management. After considering the request of the patient and attendees and after obtaining consent for high risk termination of pregnancy procedure was initiated at 4.30 p.m. So far as renewal of licence is concerned, renewal application was made to DMHO, Mahabubnagar on 24.02.2017 and they are awaiting response from the DMHO, Mahabubnagar with a further request to open the hospital, which was seized on 12.08.2017. Thereafter, proceedings dated 23.08.2017 was issued by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner is running Nursing Home without any registration as per the T.S. Allopathic Medical Care Establishments (Registration and Regulations) Act 2002 and Rules, 2007 (in short "the TSAPMC Est. Act and Rules") and thereby the running of the Nurshing Home is illegal and the deponent doctor Dr. K. Aravind Sagar, is no way concerned with the hospital as he is working as Senior Resident at District Hospital, Wanaparthi and being a Government servant he is running an establishment is impermissible. Though, in the explanation it was stated that interventions were done on the patient viz., Ratlavath Devi on account of the scan report suggesting IUD, the petitioner has not submitted USG report and opinion of gynaecologist and further any intervention with regard to pregnant woman can be done only by obtaining second opinion of the 2nd gynaecologist as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Rules 2003 (in short "MTP Act and Rules") and further the establishment is not authorised to undertake termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act and Rules. The establishment also further failed to maintain Admission Register and Form-II as per the MTP Act and Rules. The explanation that petitioner had submitted renewal application on 24.02.2017 to the DMHO Office at Mahabubnagar is not believed as the new Districts were formed on 16.10.2016, thus the explanation is not acceptable.

(2.) In the above stated facts, Sri Ghanta Rama Rao learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no power under the TSAPMC Est. Act and Rules to seize the hospital and further in the show cause notice dated 16.08.2017 was with respect to the intervention done on the patient and with the allegation of non-renewal of the hospital registration. So far as hospital registration is concerned, the application was submitted on 24.02017 to the 3rd respondent by paying the requisite fee and in support of which petitioner submits that a demand draft for Rs. 7,500/- dated 11.08.2017 was submitted. The subsequent proceedings dated 23.08.2017 is with fresh allegations and after seizure of the hospital on 108.2017. Drawing attention to Section 8 of the TSAPMC Est. Act, particularly Section 8(2) of the TSAPMC Est. Act, learned Senior Counsel contends that the act does not contemplate seizure of the hospital but permits only to seize the documents. In those circumstances, learned Senior Counsel prays for declaring the seizure of the hospital as illegal with a consequent direction to remove the seals. Learned Senior Counsel also would submit that the intervention which was undertaken by the doctors in the petitioner's hospital is squarely falls within the exception contained in Section 5 of the MTP Act, and in those circumstances, in the facts of the present case, the intervention initiated based on the scan report, suggesting IUD, is proper and in order, as otherwise, there was a danger to the life of the patient. He would also submit that in fact, the abortion carried out on the patient at Area Hospital, Wanaparthi confirmed that the abortion on the patient with a dead baby.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health (TG) by making a reference to the pleadings in counter asserts the fact that the petitioner's hospital is not registered under MPT Act and Rules, and the deponent doctor initiated abortion proceedings is admitted and cannot be denied. The learned Government Pleader also would further asserts that the contention of the petitioner that the renewal application was made on 24.02.2017 is unsubstantiated and there is no material placed before this Court to support that such application was made on 24.02.2017 and in those circumstances, the seizure of the hospital is justified. Learned Government Pleader also would submit that in terms of Section 10 read with Rule 8 the TSAPMC Est. Act and Rules there is an appeal provided to the Appellate Board and as such the Writ Petitioner may be relegated to avail the appeal provided under the Act.