Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22701 (HP)

M/S S.S. MEMORIAL ASHIRWAD HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/15768/2026 · 2026-09-10

Sandeep Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15768 of 2026 Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ M/s S.S. Memorial Ashirwad Hospital ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ridhi Verma & Mr. Sidhant Jamwal, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment of all the duly verified and approved claims submitted on account of the treatment of the patients by the petitioner Hospital under the HIMCARE Scheme amounting to Rs.43,90,550/- along with interest @ 1% of claim amount per week after 15 days of delay/turn-around time as provided in the Scheme.” 2. It is not in dispute that the legal issue involved in this petition has already been adjudicated upon in CWP No. 2080/2026, titled as M/s Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital Vs. State of 2 H.P. & Ors. decided on 21.07.2026. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the dispute involved in this petition is covered by the said decision. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be content and satisfied if the respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, in a time-bound manner. The prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 4. In view of above submissions, respondent No. 3/competent authority is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner within two weeks. In case the claim is found to be covered in terms of M/s Maatri Medicity & Orthocare Hospital (supra), the directions issued therein including the timelines provided therein shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the instant case as well. The said respondent/competent authority shall pass an appropriate order in this regard within two weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma ) Judge September 10, 2026 (sunil)