IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W. P. (C) NO. 2866 OF 2002
IN THE MATTER OF:
SOCIAL JURIST
.PETITIONER
Vs
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS
RESPONDENTS
ORDER
13.12.2006
Present : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal with Mr. Manish Bansal and
Mr. Kunwal Jeet Singh, Advocates for the petitioner.
Ms. Anusuya Salwan for respondent DDA.
Mr. Gaurav Duggal with Mr. Kailash Aggarwal,
Advocates for the respondent/UOI.
Ms. Zubeda Begum for respondent/GCTD and Health
Deptt.
Ms. Maninder Acharya for Convener of the Committee
Ms. Anusuya Salwan for respondent/DDA.
Mr. A.S. Chandiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ritesh,
Advocate for respondent/Dharamshila Hospital and
Escorts Hospital.
Mr. Lalit Bhasin with Ms. Rajeshwari Shukla,
Ms. Ratana Dwivedi and Ms. Shruti Mehinderu for
respondent/Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute.
Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vinay Kr. Garg,
and Mr. Imran Ahmad Abbasi, Advocates for respondent
Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital.
Mr. Chandiok, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sumeta Kakkad,
Ms. Sumaira Begum Khan and Mr. Ritesh Kumar,
Advocates for respondent/Escorts hospital.
Mr. V.K. Malik for respondent/Vimhans.
Mr. N.K. Kaul, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae)
with Ms. Anu Bagai
Dr. Vinod Kumar Ramteka, Medical Superintendent,
Loknayak Hospital.
Dr. S.S. Saha, Medical Superintendent, G.B. Pant
Hospital.
Dr. L.C. Thakur, Medical Superintendent, G.T.B.
Hospital.
CM No.15354/2006 in WP(C) No.2866/2002.
We may refer to the Orders of this Court dated 15th November, 2002; 7th April, 2003; 15th July, 2004; 21st August, 2006 and 2nd November, 2006 by which various respondents and authorities were directed to perform their duties and submit compliance report to this Court. We are disappointed to note the extent to which all the authorities concerned have failed to take action in accordance with the Orders of the Court and in terms of letter of allotment/lease deed executed between various hospitals and the said authorities.
Vide our order dated 2nd November, 2006, Delhi Administration and Ministry of Urban Development were directed to frame a policy with regard to the manner and methodology for compliance of the condition of free treatment to poor patients, in terms of letter of allotment/lease deed etc. The percentage of such free patients varies from 10 to 70 percent in case of different hospitals. It is contended before us that most of the hospitals have failed to carry out their obligations in terms of the conditions of allotment.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has stated that the matter in regard to the said policy decision has reached at an advance stage and is pending before the concerned Ministry. We do express a pious hope that the concerned Ministry would deal with the matter expeditiously and the Government will take a final decision in this regard without further delay. The decision so taken shall be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing positively.
Vide Order dated 15th November, 2002, Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to make a corpus by requiring the defaulting hospitals to contribute money to the extent of their default. However, no action in this respect has been taken either by the L&DO or DDA and for that matter by the Government of N.C.T., Delhi. It is a matter of great concern and the Court would expect persons concerned to take due notice of the Court Order and ensure its compliance without any default.
We direct that a report shall be submitted by the Principal Secretary,
Health; Government of N.C.T, Delhi; Secretary and Joint Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development and the Vice-Chairman, DDA in regard to proposed actions to be taken in this behalf as well as the extent of amount which is to be collected from the defaulting hospitals. This direction of the Court to make a corpus by requiring the defaulting hospitals to contribute money was primarily based upon the profits that the defaulting hospitals have gained on the basis of large chunk of prime land alloted to them at very concessional rates. The social and public object sought to be achieved by this policy of the State obviously was to provide free treatment to the poor strata of the society even by these private hospitals. Any view to the contrary would in fact defeat the very object of the scheme.
In order to verify the factual matrix, we had directed the Medical Superintendents of general hospitals to be present in Court. They are present today. We have been informed by them that 20 percent of the patients are provided free treatment by the general hospitals. This means, according to them, such 20 percent patients are entitled to treatment which includes free bed, free consultation, free medicines, free investigations and in fact they are called upon to pay nothing for their treatment. While other 80 percent patients are charged at the minimum rates in relation to costlier investigations like MRI, Ultra Sound or other investigations. Justice A.S. Qureshi’s Committee appointed by Government of NCT, Delhi had also decided that the free treatment would be on the lines as suggested by the general hospitals.
We may notice that the letter of allotment issued to the various hospitals contained terms for treating the patients on free term basis, which read as under :-
2. The Hospital will serve as general public Hospital with at least 30% of beds for free treatment for the weaker section.
3. The OPD of the Hospital will provide free services to the patients falling in the indigent category.
4. The Hospital shall take part in the National Health Programme for which its services may be called by the Directorate Health Services/Ministry of Health.
5. The Hospital shall earmark a separate area for maternity and Child Health Centre which will be available free of cost to the community.
Prima facie and at this stage, we are of the view that free treatment includes providing of investigative consultancy treatment and admission free of any charges to a patient who belongs to a poor strata of the society. Providing a free bed and charging him for everything else would obviously defeat the very object of concessional distribution of lands and apparently would be just an eye wash or a camouflage to cover the default of the concerned hospitals.
In view of this, we direct DDA to issue notices to such defaulting hospitals within two weeks from today. If the notices have already been issued and replies have been received, they should be considered by the competent authority of the DDA and a composite report be placed on record before the next date of hearing. Similarly, steps shall be taken by the L&DO as it is commonly conceded before us that no hospital is strictly complying with the condition of free treatment to the patients to the extent of agreed percentage.
DDA has given land to 24 major hospitals in Delhi at concessional rates while L&DO has given lands to two hospitals at similar rates. Thus, it is not only a contractual but even public law obligation of these authorities to ensure that the terms of lease are honoured by the allottee, especially, when they are intended to serve a larger public purpose, namely, providing free treatment to the poor persons. The Committee already appointed by this Court would inspect and submit a report. It is apparent from the record before us that except three hospitals aforenoticed, all other hospitals are in default of compliance to the said condition. Be that as it may, we direct the Committee to have random inspection of any or all hospitals which are defaulting as well as stated to be complying with the condition of free treatment to poor. The concerned SHOs of that area are hereby directed to provide full assistance to the Committee as well as provide required number of Constables for verification of facts which they may like during their inspections. The Committee would also be at liberty to engage the services of a Chartered Accountant, if they wish to do so.
We make it clear that any observations made in this Order would not be construed as a direction of the Court to take action against the parties in a particular way. The authorities concerned are at their discretion to act in accordance with law and take such decisions as they deem fit and proper depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. We expect that all concerned authorities, hospitals would fully cooperate to ensure compliance of the order of the Court. The persons, authorities or hospitals, who obstruct compliance of the order of the Court and/or do not fully cooperate or fail to comply with the directions contained in this order, shall be liable to be proceeded against in accordance with law.
Learned counsel appearing for the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute had argued that vide order dated 15.7.2004 notice issued to the hospital was discharged and, thus, no order could be passed thereafter against them. To some extent this argument is correct that the Court had discharged the notice but keeping in view the subsequent reports of the Committee where this hospital was found to be a defaulting hospital, the Division Bench vide its order dated 2nd November, 2006 has specifically noticed that the Committee had made certain observations against this hospital and they were ordered to be present in Court. Thus, there is sufficient notice now to this hospital to demonstrate before the Court as to why appropriate directions in accordance with law be not made even in their case. Subsequently an application has been filed (CM 15354/2006) for exemption from personal appearance.
In terms of the previous order, the officers/officials of Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute were granted exemption from personal appearance in Court but they were required to remain present as and when directed.
The Committee shall be at liberty to visit the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute at any time and without notice.
CM No.15354/2006 is accordingly disposed of.
Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties under the signature of the Court Master.
List on 17th January, 2007.
SWATANTER KUMAR, J.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
December 13, 2006.’msr’