AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K. Jain, J.—The petitioner society was allotted land measuring 0.84 acres by DDA for building a hospital. The lease required the petitioner to have at least 25% of total beds free for public at a nominal charge of Rs. 1/- per bed. According to the petitioner, the said hospital became operational in the year 1980 and they are offering 100% free treatment and partial free treatment to the deserving patients. Vide order dated 22.3.2007 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2866/2002, Social Jurist versus Government of NCT of Delhi and others, a Division Bench of this Court, inter alia, directed as under:
In view of the unanimity of the views of the Committees and particularly the Qureshi Committee report which has even been accepted by the Government as afore-noticed, we consider it appropriate that the condition of free patient treatment to the indigent strata of the society shall be read and construed as 25% for OPD and 10% for IPD. This percentage of patients will not be liable to pay any expenses in the hospital. In other words, they will be provided free admission, bed, medication, treatment, surgery facility, nursing facility and consumables and non-consumables. The hospitals charging any money from such patients shall be liable to be proceeded against in accordance with law. Besides that, this would be treated as violation of the orders of the court...
xxxx
91...
All the 20 hospitals stated in this judgment and/or all other hospitals identically situated shall strictly comply with the term of free patient treatment to indigent/poor persons of Delhi as specified above i.e. 25% OPD and 10% IPD patients completely free of charges in all respects.
CM 9246/2007 was filed by Govt. of NCT of Delhi seeking, inter alia, clarification that all the hospitals which had been granted land on concessional rates would abide by the order of free treatment till such time it was varied by any competent Court. Vide order dated 17.7.2007, this Court in modification of the order dated 22.3.2007, directed that all the hospitals which had been granted land on concessional rates would abide by the order for free treatment, till such time it was varied by any competent Court.
Vide CM No. 18603/2012, the Directorate of Health Services, Government of NCT of Delhi sought clarification in respect of certain paragraphs of the order dated 22.3.2007. It was stated in the application that in terms of the aforesaid order, certain hospitals would be liable from 2007 whereas another set of hospitals shall be liable from the date on which they became operational/functional. The applicant accordingly sought directions with regard to the date to be taken for the purpose of calculating the profits earned by various hospitals in extending free treatment to the poor. It was further stated in the said application that the applicant was in the process of hiring professional Chartered Accountants to scrutinize the books of accounts of all the hospitals which had failed to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 22.3.2007 and these professional wants to know the specific year from which the scrutiny of records of the hospitals is required to be carried out by them.
Paragraph 91(C) and 91(D) of the order dated 22.3.2007 reads as under:
C. The conditions imposed in this judgment qua those hospitals who have fully or partially complied with the condition, shall be prospective. D. The hospitals which have not complied with the conditions at all and have persisted with the default despite issuance of even show cause notices by the authorities, for them the condition shall operate from the date their hospitals have become functional.
The Division Bench while disposing of the said application vide order dated 13.3.2013 observed and held as under:
It is evident from the bare perusal of the above referred paragraph that as far as hospitals which had either partly or fully complied with the condition with respect to free treatment of poor patients, the directions contained in the order dated 22.3.2007 would apply prospectively i.e. from the date of the order whereas in the case of the hospitals which had not complied with such a condition either wholly or partly, the directions contained in the order dated 22.3.2007 would operate from the date their hospitals became functional. It is for the official respondents to ascertain which hospitals did not either fully or partly comply with the condition to provide free medical treatment to the poor patients became functional and which hospitals had complied with the said condition, either wholly or partly.
In paragraph 84 of the order dated 22.3.2007, this Court, inter alia, observed that the hospitals which were awarded land by DDA and/or Land DO were expected to make the hospitals functional within two years from the date they had taken the possession of the plots in question and they were required to immediately start complying with the condition for free treatment of the patients. It was further observed that there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the hospitals not to comply with the mandate of the condition and, therefore, they would be asked to make good of the non-compliance of the condition and they must repay to the authorities and the society at large, for the unwarranted profits made by them at the costs of the poor for all these years, to the extent of percentage of the free patient treatment in terms of money, proportionate to the number of patients treated by them during the relevant period and they must pay that money to the authorities who shall create a central corpus/pool, which shall be utilized for the welfare, healthcare and treatment of the poorer sections of the society in government hospitals.
It is quite clear from perusal of the said paragraph that the obligation to repay to the authorities and the society in respect of unwarranted profits made by such hospitals by not adhering to the stipulation for providing free medical treatment to the poor patients arises with effect from two years from the date on which they took possession of the plots of land allotted to them. Therefore, there seems to be no need of any clarification as far as the above referred direction is concerned. The accounts of such hospital need to be scrutinized with effect from two years from the date they took possession of the land on which the hospital is constructed. Of course, it is for the official respondent ascertain on which date the possession of the allotted land was taken by these hospitals.
Vide order dated 25.4.2013, the Directorate of Health Services appointed M/s. Prem Gupta & Co., Chartered Accountant, to calculate the recovery amount in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this Court from six hospitals including the hospital of the petitioner. The scope of the audit to be carried out by the said firm is as under:
To validate the free treatment claim made by the hospital in respect of number of free indigent/poor patients in IPD and OPD, amount & service-wise.
To determine whether the percentage of free treatment which had been provided was as per DDA/L&DO/MCD requirement/allotment letter/High Court Order.
To verify the eligibility criteria of patients admitted under free category.
To examine the records maintained in respect of poor/indigent/EWS patient treated by the concerned hospital.
Vide communication dated 29.4.2013, the petitioner was informed of the appointment of the aforesaid firm and was directed to provide space and all the necessary documents/records etc to the said firm for the purpose of audit which was to commence from 1.5.2013. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid directions, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition.
It would thus be seen that in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2866/2002, and the order dated 13.3.2013 passed in CM No. 18603/2012, the directions passed by this Court with respect to free treatment of poor patients would apply prospectively to the petitioner in case it had complied with the lease condition either wholly or partly, but would apply retrospectively i.e. from the date the hospital became functional, in case the said condition with respect to free treatment of poor patients was not complied even partly. It would be for the Directorate of Health Services to verify as to whether a particular hospital had either fully or partly complied with the condition with respect to free treatment of poor patients or not. It is for this purpose that the Directorate of Health Services needs to audit all the accounts of the hospitals, since no such verification is possible without auditing the said accounts. In case it is found that the petitioner had not complied with the lease condition either wholly or partly, it has to make good of the non-compliance by repaying the authorities and the society, for the unwarranted profits made by them at the costs of the poor to the extent of percentage of the free patients treatment in terms of the money proportionate to the number of patients treated by them during the relevant period and they would have to pay that money to the authorities for the purpose of creating a central corpus/pool and the money from the said pool would be utilized for the welfare and health care and for treatment of poor people of the society in government hospitals.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is for the Directorate of Health Services to carry out necessary verification in order to ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2866/2007, the said function cannot be outsourced to a private agency. I, however, find no merit in the contention. The Directorate of Health Services has to carry out audit of the account of a large number of hospitals which have been given land in Delhi, by various land owning agencies and the Directorate is not equipped to undertake this exercise of its own. Since the Directorate lacks the skill and the resources required to carry out the task of this nature, in respect of a number of hospitals, it has no option but to assign the task to the agencies which it has identified and nominated for this purpose. Therefore, no exception can be taken to engagement of an outsourced agency for the purpose of auditing the accounts of the petitioner. Even otherwise, I fail to appreciate why the petitioner society is not willing to produce their accounts before the agency nominated by Directorate of Health Services for the purpose of undertaking the audit, particularly when the agency has been asked to carry out the audit in the premises of the petitioner. The petitioner, in my view, should have no apprehension, in sharing its accounts with the agency engaged by Directorate of Health Services. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. It is again made clear that the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2866/2002 would apply retrospectively to the petitioner if it is found that it has not complied with the condition of providing free treatment to the poor patients either wholly or partly. If it is found that the petitioner had complied with the aforesaid condition, even partly, the order passed in W.P. (c) No. 2866/2002 would apply prospectively, to the petitioner and an appropriate decision in this regard would have been taken by the said Directorate alone though it would be entitled to rely upon the report of the agency engaged by it, for the purpose of taking an appropriate decision in the matter. There shall be no orders as to costs.