Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 89831 (PNJ)

RAJENDER SHRIDAR v. POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH CHANDIGARH PGIMER THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND OTHERS

CWP/23506/2025 · 2025-08-19

Suvir Sehgal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-23506-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (128) CWP-23506-2025 Date of decision:- 19.08.2025 RAJENDER SHRIDHAR ... PETITIONER VERSUS POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. M.S.Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Advocate for the respondent No.1/PGIMER. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL) 1. Instant petition has been filed inter-alia for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider representation dated 04.04.2025, Annexure P-1, and to provide medical treatment to the petitioner. 2. On 13.08.2025, this Court requested Mr. Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Advocate, who had appeared on behalf of respondent No.1, to apprise the Court as to whether the petitioner can be provided treatment at the Institute. 3. Upon instructions, counsel for respondent No.1/PGIMER has placed on record copies of internal communications bearing No.OHSC/000708 dated 20.05.2023 and No.OHSC/22 dated 18.05.2023 as well as internal notings of respondent No.1. The internal notings are reproduced hereunder:- KAMAL SHARMA 2025.08.22 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. CWP-23506-2025 -2- “This is for your information that we have already written to the Director, PGIMER. on 20 May 2023 against his complaint addressed to the Director, PGIMER with comments of Prof Ashima Goyal, the then Head of the OHSC (Flag A). Prof Vidya Rattan, Unit Incharge of Oral & Maxillofaical Surgery (Flag- B) and Prof Sudhir Bhandari, Incharge Unit of Prosthodontics (Flag-C), which are self-explanatory. 1. That the implants placed in the oral cavity from Rohtak Dental College are stable and well osseointegrated. 2. This particular implant system is not available at the Oral Health Sciences Center, PGIMER, Chandigarh. 3. Regarding the demand of the patient, Mr. Rajender, removal of these stable implants, it is reiterated it will cause severe damage to his native bone and may compromise further treatment. This particular draw back of removal of implant is not in a patient's best interest and has been explained to him on multiple occasions by all of us. 4. It is of high significance that the implant placed in the patient's mouth should have compatible components for optimal outcome of the treatment and it desirable that implants specific components must be available at the treating facility for the treatment and at the same time addressing the complications which may arise later on. Considering this it is re-emphasized that the components for the particular implants which is placed in the patient's mouth is not available at Oral Health Sciences Center, PGIMER. 5. It is advisable that the patient may seek treatment to any dental college or any dental facility where this implant system is available. 6. We have provided the name address and contact details of Pan India and North India Head of the implant system (mentioned at Flag - C) which has placed in the patient for further treatment.” 4. Counsel for respondent No.1/PGIMER has also invited the attention of the Court to the internal communication addressed to the Head of the KAMAL SHARMA 2025.08.22 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh. CWP-23506-2025 -3- Department by Dr. Sudhir Bhandari, wherein it has been stated that the implants in the oral cavity of the petitioner are from a company called Genesis and this implant system is not available with respondent No.1/PGIMER as it does not have the necessary “equipment/components/ abutments/impression posts/analogues/screw-drivers”. He has apprised the Court that as respondent No.1/PGIMER is not a position to treat the petitioner, he has been advised and informed about the institutes where he can get the treatment. In view of the above, relief, as sought for, cannot be granted to the petitioner. 5. Writ petition is dismissed. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE 19.08.2025 Kamal Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KAMAL SHARMA 2025.08.22 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.