MR. ROHIT GUPTA SON OF SHRI VIJAY GUPTA Vs. POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (PGIMER), THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges the issue of cancellation of licence to run a medical shop within the PGI Hospital complex on a decision taken by the Administration after enquiry into alleged serious misconduct of the Petitioner as an authorized Chemist, having his shop within the premises. The misconduct attributed to him was that, he had sold a repacked plasma sterilized paediatric size aortic cannula to a patient meant to be used during surgery. The Petitioner had responded to the charge of misconduct by stating that it was a new one and not an used, but sterilized one. In an enquiry conducted after gathering the statements of a nurse and doctors among others, the Administration found the misconduct attributed to the Petitioner as established and relying on the term of the contract of licence issued to the Petitioner proceeded to terminate the licence and also initiated action for eviction under the Public Premises Act. The Petitioner challenges the finding in the enquiry, the decision taken for cancellation of licence, and the consequential action directed for securing an eviction from the premises occupied by him.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contends that it was false to state that the Petitioner had supplied an used surgical item. On the contrary, on 17.04.2011, he had supplied several surgical items necessary for the surgery on a patient that included a cannula described as 'venacava cath 3446', but a replacement of the product was sought by the nurse, requiring him to supply 'cannula 34' instead, which was supplied on 18.04.2011 among other iteMs. According to him, it was not an used plasma sterilized product. The counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner could never have had access to an used cannula to be re-circulated after plasma sterilization. On the other hand, only the PGI Hospital puts into circulation such used plasma sterilized cannula for extremely poor and indigent patients, who cannot afford to buy or in emergency situation. This argument was to impress upon the Court that there was nothing inherently dangerous about such use, as such.

(3.) As an alternative argument, the counsel would state that in any event, the report, on the basis of which the impugned action of cancellation was done, did not itself reveal that he had been guilty of the misconduct. On the other hand, the Sub Committee comprising of doctors, who had perused the complaint, had merely concluded that it was of, ''the unanimous opinion that the repack cannula in question appears to have been supplied by Aditya Medicos.'' The contention, therefore, was there was no sure finding that the repacked cannula had been supplied only by the Petitioner. A serious action, such as, termination of a contract, could not have been taken by the Administration, when there was no untoward incident reported on account of the alleged supply. The learned Counsel would also argue that even as per the terms of the contract, the cancellation could arise only in the event of sale or supply of goods which are spurious, soiled, damaged post-dated and expired stocks. A supply of plasma sterilized cannot come within any of the descriptions to entail cancellation of the contract and forfeiture of the security deposit.