Bombay HC Stays State Government's Notification Fixing Maximum Rates For Non-Covid Patients In Private Hospitals [Read Order]
The Bombay High Court for the time being has stayed the operation of the State government's notification wherein the maximum rates chargeable for treatment of Non-Covid patients were fixed. Court had previously asked the State to clarify whether it had the power to fix rates for treatment of Non-Covid patients.Division bench of Justice RK Deshpande and Justice PV Ganediwala of the Nagpur...
The Bombay High Court for the time being has stayed the operation of the State government's notification wherein the maximum rates chargeable for treatment of Non-Covid patients were fixed. Court had previously asked the State to clarify whether it had the power to fix rates for treatment of Non-Covid patients.
Division bench of Justice RK Deshpande and Justice PV Ganediwala of the Nagpur bench were hearing a writ petition filed by Hospitals' Association, Nagpur and Dr.Pradeep Arora challenged the said notifications dated April 30, 2020 and May 21, 2020 issued by the State Government which contained the following clause-
"For Covid Patients treated at any of the Hospitals/ Nursing homes/Clinics covered under this notification across Maharashtra, rates shall not be more than rates prescribed in Annexure-C. For non-Covid patients rates will be as per Annexure-A read with Annexure-B (if applicable)."
The said notification fixed maximum chargeable rates for both Covid and Non-Covid patients. Petitioners had challenged the clause fixing rates for non-Covid patients.
Court was informed that the notification dated August 31, 2020 issued by the State Government which continues the force of earlier notifications April 30 and May 21 upto November 31,2020 with certain modifications. Undisputedly, Clause (4) of the notification dated 21.05.2020 which we have reproduced continues to operate till November 31, Court noted.
Initially on August 13, Court issued notice for final disposal of the matter and to have assistance on legal aspects, requested Senior Advocate Subodh Dharmadhikari to act as an Amicus Curiae in the matter.
Thereafter, on August 31,2020, a detailed speaking order was passed expressing the Court's anxiety to know the competency of the State Government to incorporate Clause (4) prescribing the rates for non-covid patients as per Annexures A and B in the private hospitals and adjourned the matter till September 15, when another order was passed. Court had said in the September 15 hearing-.
"We wanted the respondents to make a statement regarding the authority to impose rates as per Annexure-A and B. Therefore, we do not find that more time is required to be granted. If the instructions are not received and placed on record, we will be required to stay the portion which requires the petitioner to follow the rates prescribed in Annexure-A and B."
On September 23, 2020 a statement was made by Additional Government Pleader AM Deshpande that a praecipe has been moved before the Chief Justice for transfer of this matter and to tag it along with some connected matters which are also said to be pending in the Principal Seat challenging the same notifications.
On Friday, the bench reiterated-
"We just wanted to know the competency of the State Government to incorporate the aforesaid clause in the notification and made it clear in the order dated 15.09.2020 that if the instructions are not received and placed on record, we will be required to stay the portion which requires the petitioner to follow the rates prescribed in Annexure-A and B of the notification dated 21.05.2020."
While AGP AM Deshpande raised the technical objection that the notification dated August 31, 2020 issued by the State Government has not been challenged in the present petition. He also urged that if the Municipal Commissioner has passed a separate order extending the applicability of the notification, the same is also not under challenge. He further sought the matter to be kept on September 29 on which date the matter can be argued on the question of competency of the State Government to issue such notifications.
Senior Advocate Subodh Dharmadhikari, acting as Amicus Curiae urged that if the notification dated May 21 is extended by another notification dated August 31, it would merely be a formality to place on record the notification dated August 31. The challenge in substance to the notification dated May 21 would survive for consideration by this Court, Dharmadhikari submitted.
The bench observed-
"We are conscious of the propriety of taking up this matter, particularly when the learned Additional Government Pleader has placed before us the praecipe moved on 22.09.2020 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. However, what we find is that the order which we passed earlier on 15.09.2020 assuring the petitioners that the matter will be heard on the question of grant of interim relief to the portion of notification shall lose its sanctity. We do not want the litigants to carry such an impression.
In view of above, put up this matter on 29.09.2020 so as to enable the State Government to move the praecipe before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders, or to enable the learned Additional Government Pleader to argue the matter on merits opposing the application for stay. However, in the meantime, we stay the effect of operation of Clause (4) of the notification dated 21.05.2020 which we reproduced in our order."
Thus, the matter will now be heard on September 29
[Read Order]