1 2025:CGHC:35307-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 482 of 2025 Padmesh Kumar Sahu S/o Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Belgaon P.S. Dongargarh District Rajnandgaon (C G.), ... Appellant(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay Atal Nagar District- Raipur(C.G.), 2 The Director, Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar District- Raipur (C.G.), 3 National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary, National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110077 India, 4 The Collector Cum Supervisory Authority Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 5 The Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 6 The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Rajnandgaon District- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.24 12:01:27 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 7 Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Through Its Partner Dr. Raghunandan Sharma, S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, Occupation- Doctor Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 8 Dr. Chaman Nishad Occupation Doctor Cum Director Of Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon(C.G.), 9 Dr. Prateek Kaushik Occupation- Doctor Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 10 Dr. Archana Rangari Occupation- Doctor Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), 11 Dr. Suresh Patre Occupation- Doctor, Shukla Multi Specialty Basantpur, District Rajnandgaon(C.G.), 12 Dr. Archana Rangari Occupation- Doctor, Shukla Multi Specialty Hospital Basantpur, District-Rajnandgaon(C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent No. 8 to 12 : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2025 3 1. The appellant/ writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 2873 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the brother of the appellant/ writ petitioner namely Pulkesh Kumar Sahu met with an accident on 26.09.2019 and was taken to the hospital of respondent No. 7, where he was admitted and it was opined that the injuries sustained by the patient were of normal nature but due to negligence of the doctor and the other medical staff he died. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under :- 11. An order was passed on 3.12.2019 directing the closure of the hospital run by respondents No.7 & 8. The order was challenged by filing WPC No. 4511 of 2019 before the High Court. A protective order was passed in favour of respondent No.7 with the liberty to file an appeal. In the appeal, the Director of Health Services vide order dated 2.3.2020 directed the Competent Authority to take appropriate steps for the renewal of the hospital's license and consequently, the license of respondent No.7 was renewed. The order dated 2.3.2020 has not been challenged by the 4 petitioner. 6. With regard to compensation, there is a finding that the cause of death was a head injury. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to claim the compensation in accordance with the law. 7. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference, consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that brother of the appellant met with an accident and thereafter was admitted in the hospital of respondent No. 7 wherein it was opined by the Doctor that the injuries were of normal nature. He further submits that during the hospitalization of the brother of the petitioner, the doctors and other medical staff were not available and proper medical support was not provided due to which he died. He would further submit that the petitioner along with the other villagers lodged a written complaint before respondents No. 4 to 6 on which the Respondent No.5 conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Private Secretary to the office of the Hon'ble the Chief Minister. He would also submit that learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that enquiry committee has found 31 deficiencies in the hospital and suggested to close the hospital 5 vide its report dated 03.12.2019 but the hospital is still running. He also submits that the license of the hospital was extended till 31.03.2020 only. He would further contend that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to take necessary action and to grant just and proper compensation to the petitioner for medical negligence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that against the report dated 3.12.2019, respondent No.7 preferred WPC No. 4511 of 2019, which was disposed of vide order dated 6.12.2019 granting liberty to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority and a protective order was passed in favour of respondent No. 7. They would contend that respondent No.7 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the same has been decided in favour of respondent No.7. They would further submit that the Director of Health Services held that the application for renewal of the license is a separate matter from the death of a person during treatment. Pursuant to this, the authority concerned directed the Competent Authority to take appropriate steps with regard to the renewal of the license of the hospital of respondent No.7 vide order dated 2.3.2020. It is contended that the order dated 2.3.2020 has not been challenged by the petitioner. They would also submit that the deceased had sustained a serious head injury, which was the cause of death, and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. 6 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition. 7. Bare perusal of the records show that an order was passed on 03.12.2019 directing closure of the hospital run by respondents No.7 & 8. The order was challenged by filing WPC No. 4511 of 2019 before this Court. A protective order was passed in favour of respondent No.7 with liberty to file an appeal. In the appeal, the Director of Health Services vide order dated 2.3.2020 directed the Competent Authority to take appropriate steps for the renewal of the hospital's license and consequently, the license of respondent No.7 was renewed and the same was not challenged by the petitioner. Further, regarding the compensation, there is finding that the cause of death was a head injury. 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, we are of the view that the order passed by learned single judge is just and proper and needs no interference. 9. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ $ Bhilwar