Telangana High Court
WP/21111/2009 of M/s. LK Hospitals Private Limited, having its Registered Vs The Union of India., rep.by its Secretary Ministry of on 29 December 2009
MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21068 and 21111 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, are private hospitals, having the capacity of more than 100 beds, but less than 200 beds. They were empanelled under the Central Government Health Scheme
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDYWrit Petition No.21068 and 21111 of 2009
COMMON ORDER:
The petitioners, in both the writ petitions, are private hospitals,having the capacity of more than 100 beds, but less than 200 beds. They were empanelled under the Central Government Health Scheme(CGHS). That enabled the petitioners to extend health services to theCentral Government employees and for reimbursement of thecharges. The Central Government issued E-tender document, dated05.09.2009, for determination of rates, for empanelment of privatehospitals under the CGHS. Clause-A of the document stipulates thecategories of hospitals that can offer their bids. Both for generalpurpose hospitals and specialty hospitals, the capacity is stipulated as200 or more beds. For super-specialty hospitals, the stipulation is 300or more beds, and for cancer hospitals, the stipulation is 100 beds. The petitioners are general hospitals and their capacity is less than100 beds. They feel aggrieved by the criterion stipulated under thetender document. Petitioners contend that they have already beenempanelled and were rendering service to the satisfaction of all, andthat there is no basis for enhancing the stipulation, as to capacity.
On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is statedthat the revised criteria of bed strength is not applicable to thehospitals, which are already empanelled under CGHS, and it is meantfor fresh applicants.
Heard Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for thepetitioners, and Sri C.Vani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for therespondents.
There is no dispute that the petitioners were empanelled torender service under CGHS. The E-document, dated 05.09.2009, isfor the purpose of fixing the rates in future for various services. It is no doubt true that in Clause-A, the bed strength of the different categoriesof hospitals is stipulated, in such way, that the petitioners do not qualifyunder them. However, the next clause, viz., clause-B, makes it amplyclear that the hospitals, which are already empanelled, would not begoverned by the new guidelines. On behalf of respondents, acategorical statement is made in para 5 of the counter-affidavit, whichreads:
“The revised criteria of beds are not applicable tohospitals already empanelled with CGHS if they wish tocontinue to be empanelled for the same services. Theconditions of tender document are not against the interest ofpetitioners.”
With this, the grievance of the petitioners stands redressed.By virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, the tenderssubmitted by the petitioners were received by the respondents.
The Writ Petitions are allowed, in view of the unequivocal standtaken by the respondents and it is held that the condition, as tostrength of beds in general hospitals, does not apply to such of thepetitioners, who are already under CGHS.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.29-12-2009.GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.