Telangana: Hospital under scanner for illegal Covid treatment

Hyderabad: Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the state government to assess and if necessary, take action against Eva Multi-Specialty Hospital in Vanasthalipuram, over a writ petition that alleged that the hospital, despite not being authorised to treat Covid-19 patients, billed the petitioner Rs. 12 lakh for his son’s Covid-19 treatment as an in-patient in July 2020. The petitioner, B. Madhusudan, a city-based businessman, said that he ascertained the same through an RTI petition, and repeated representations to the government to cancel the hospital’s licence went unheeded. The petitioner also contended that he was charged more than the government-prescribed rates for Covid-19 treatment, even as the hospital returned Rs. 1.31 lakh. Justice Nanda inferred in her judgment that while the government granted permission on July 22, it was the date when the application for permission was made. Such permission, the judge said, could not have been accorded without an inspection. The judge accordingly directed a detailed inquiry to be conducted. Based on the same, authorities will take action against the hospital, if necessary, Justice Nanda said.

Diet food contract at Gandhi Hospital under lens

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court directed the government and the Hyderabad District Diet Management Committee to consider a representation for handing over possession of the kitchen for diet supply in Gandhi Hospital to Shivenari canteen services. The petitioner was the successful bidder in competitive bidding. The superintendent of Gandhi Hospital issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, on an issue relating to EMD/security leading to the licensee being orally informed that the kitchen will be handed over only after dispute resolution with the previous contractor. However, in April, the direct tender awarded to the petitioner was cancelled. Perusing the records, Justice Nanda pointed out that under the agreement between the petitioner and the hospital, the contract was to be executed within 10 days from the date of award to the petitioner but was not done so. The order of cancellation, the judge said, was unreasoned, declaring it as “irrational, unilateral, arbitrary, and vitiated and hence liable to be set aside”. The authorities were given two weeks to consider the representation for handing over the kitchen for the supply of diet food at Gandhi Hospital.

HC refuses to stay criminal proceedings against teacher

Justice K. Surender of the Telangana High Court refused to interdict criminal proceedings against a retired schoolteacher of Nizamabad and dismissed a petition filed by him seeking to examine himself in a cheque bounce case. “I do not find any valid grounds of protracting the case for 14 years by taking adjournments on one or the other including the ground of compromise. The petitioner's conduct and the proceedings clearly indicate that the present applications are filed to further protract the proceedings, which cannot be permitted,” Justice Surender said. The petitioner Mohammed Sadiq is facing two criminal cases before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Nizamabad one for a cheque bounce and another for offences, including public nuisance, voluntarily causing hurt, assault and provoking breach of trust and criminal breach based on a complaint by complainant K. Annapurna, a tailor by profession. The cases were filed in 2009 and have been pending for 14 years. “It appears that the petitioner has used every trick to delay the cases for all these years,” the judge said, pointing out that no reason was given as to what would be the evidence to be brought on record in support of the defence. “A general statement is made in the petition stating that if the petitioner is permitted to record his evidence, then he will be able to establish that the exhibit marked and evidence recorded in the complaint are all false, forged and fabricated. Except for such general and vague statements, the necessity of entering into the box is not stated. The petitioner was given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses when the documents were brought on record and his defence was already stated by way of cross-examination,” the judge concluded.