Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hari Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 17 th OF MARCH, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1996 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
HARI SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI BHUPAL SINGH TOMAR,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRIL. GH 758
DEEN DAYAL NAGAR (MP)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI VIVEK MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HEALTH
DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MP)
2. THE COLLECTOR GWALIOR, DISTRICT GWALIOR
(MP)
3. CHIEF MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER
GWALIOR DISTRICT GWALIOR (MP)
4. DIRECTOR, PRIME HOSPITAL, C-2, C-3 KAILASH
NAGAR CITY CENTER, GWALIOR (MP)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI A.K. NIRANKARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 3 AND SHRI ARMAN ALI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4 )
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Ravi Malimath, Chief Justice passed the following:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.22650 of 2019 by relegating the petitioner
to file an appeal under Section 6 of the M.P. Upcharyagriha Tatha Rujopchar
Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973 (for
short "the Act"), the petitioner is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he suffered an injury on his left leg in
a road accident on 26.04.2016. Initially he went to the Birla Hospital, Gwalior
where he was treated. Thereafter he reached J.A. Hospital, Gwalior. Thereafter
he was advised and was admitted in Prime Hospital, Gwalior, namely,
respondent No.4. Thereafter an operation was conducted on his left leg on
28.04.2016. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 and its
doctors have committed grave negligence during operation. That, they collected
huge fees. That the operation was not done successfully. The petitioner has
become handicapped due to the negligence of the doctors of respondent No.4 -
Hospital. Consequently, he filed a complaint before respondents No.2 and 3 to
take legal action against the respondent No.4. An inquiry was set up. On the
basis of the preliminary inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to respondent
No.4 for cancelling the registration. On conclusion of the inquiry, an order was
passed suspending the license of the respondent No.4 - Hospital for a period of
one month. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition was filed.
3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order came to the conclusion
that the writ petitioner is entitled to file an appeal under Section 6 of the Act.
We have considered the same. Section 6 of the Act pertains to the refusal or
cancellation of registration and the provisions of Section 6(3) provides remedy
to any person aggrieved by an order refusing an application for registration and
license or cancelling any registration or license.
4. On considering the relevant provisions of law, we are of the view that same
is not applicable to the case of the petitioner. It is only applicable to the
aggrieved person thereon. The petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved
person He is the complainant. On the basis of his complaint, an inquiry was
initiated. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is alien
to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we are of the view that
appropriate interference is called for.
5. An inquiry was initiated at the behest of the petitioner for certain acts of
negligence. Having found the respondent No.4 guilty, punishment has been
imposed of suspension of the license. What the petitioner ostensibly pleads is
for enhancement of the punishment. He places reliance on Section 5 of the Act
and contends that there should be cancellation of the registration and license of
the respondent No.4 - Hospital. He places reliance on the various material
produced in the inquiry as well as the material in his complaint to justify his
case. The same is disputed by the respondents.
6. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate
interference is called for.
7. So far as the imposition of punishment of suspension of license for one
month is concerned, in our considered view, may not be appropriate. We have
considered the manner in which the entire proceedings have been conducted. It
would appear that based on the treatment given in the hospital the petitioner has
become handicapped. This is a very serious damage to the health and life of the
petitioner. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that merely
suspending the licence for a period of one month may not be just and
appropriate. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, it is
improper for a High Court in a writ jurisdiction to award punishment for
whatever reasons may be assigned. It is ultimately the concerned authority
which has a jurisdiction with regard to the imposition of punishment.
8. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that it is only just and
proper that the authority reconsiders the matter insofar as it pertains to the
awarding of punishment is concerned. We are prima facie of the view that the
award of punishment of suspension of licence for one month may not be
appropriate. However, it is for the authority to decide the same. They are
entitled to take appropriate decision based on the facts and circumstances
involved.
9. Hence, for all these reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The order
dated 05.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.22650 of
2019, as well as, the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by Chief Medical Officer
insofar as it relates to suspending the licence of respondent No.4-Hospital, are
set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the matter so far as the
quantum of punishment is concerned and pass an appropriate order in terms of
the facts and circumstances involved in this case.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
neetu
NEETU
SHASHANK
2023.03.20
13:44:49
+05'30'
