1 / 7 CGHC010134722021 2026:CGHC:32461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2375 of 2021 Sanjay Ambastha S/o Mohan Gopal Ambastha Aged About 51 Years R/o Suman Sadan Darripara, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Through Additional Director, Central Government Health Scheme 2nd Floor Swasthya Sadan Mukund Nagar, Pune Maharastra 3 - The Nodal Officer Ram Krishna Care Hospital Regional Transport Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - D. H. O. Cum Inquiry Officer, Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 6 - Ram Krishna Care Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. Through The Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.30 18:30:14 +0530 2 / 7 Management Aurobindo Enclave, Pachpedhi Naka, Dhamtari Road, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Resp. No. 1,3, 4 & 5/State: Ms. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 6/Hospital : Mr. Karunendra Narayan Singh, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Ram Krishna Care hospital to refund back all the amount charged in excess in violation of the scheme of the Central Government and order of the State Government. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take necessary legal action against Ram Krishna Care hospital under the provisions of Epidemic Disease Act-1897 and Chhattisgarh Public Act-1949 and Chhattisgarh Epidemic Disease Covid-19 Regulation -2020. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to proceed against the hospital under the provision of the Indian Penal Code. 10.4 Any other relief (s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case may be granted. 10.5 The cost of the petition may be awarded 3 / 7 to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mother of the petitioner was admitted in respondent No.6/Hospital after diagnosing her Covid-19 positive. She was treated in the Covid Ward with isolation and during course of treatment, she expired on 02.10.2020. Thereafter respondent No.6/Hospital raised bill of Rs.4,51,469/- towards treatment vide Annexure P-1. He submits that medical charges which is shown in Annexure P-1 bill is much higher than what the State Govt. has fixed for treatment. In support of his contention, he referred to amended order dated 10.12.2020 and contended that for treatment of Covid -19 patient, per day charges has been fixed. For HDU (with Oxygen) bed, it is fixed as Rs.5,500/- per day; for ICU without ventilator bed, it is fixed as Rs.7,000/- per day and for ICU with ventilator bed, it is fixed as Rs.9,000/- per day. He further contended that earlier bed charges was Rs.6,200/-, Rs.12,000/- and 17,000/- respectively. He invites attention of this Court to the documents enclosed along with reply submitted by State, in particular the report submitted by the Committee of three doctors before Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Raipur wherein it is mentioned that hospital management of respondent No.6 admitted that nursing charges taken for the treatment of the patient is to be returned to the patient's family, because nursing care comes under supporting care and it is included in the bed charges. He also contended that with regard to administering remdesivir to the patient, further inquiry is to be conducted. Respondent No.6/Hospital could have charged only as per rate fixed by the State Govt. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that based on complaint, a 4 / 7 Committee of three doctors was constituted and notices were issued to both the sides. Hospital was represented and appeared before the said Committee but the petitioner did not appear to record his statement and accordingly, report was submitted to the CMHO, Raipur. She also submits that person appeared and representing respondent No.6/Hospital had made statement that the nursing charges can be refunded to the petitioner/complainant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6/Hospital would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that order dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure P-7) as also the subsequent order dated 10.12.2020 i.e. amended order filed at page No.28 of writ petition would not apply to the facts of case as that provides for amended rates. On the date of admission and treatment of mother of petitioner, rates which was prevailing is mentioned in the order dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure P-7). He however submits that in view of report submitted by the Committee of doctors based on averments made by the representative of management of respondent No.6/Hospital that hospital charges would be refunded, he is having no objection if this Court directs refund of nursing charges which is forming part of bill (Annexure P-1) to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. The claim of petitioner in this case is that respondent No.6/Hospital has raised bill with higher and exorbitant charges than the charges fixed under the scheme of Central Govt. as well as State Govt. Petitioner in 5 / 7 support of his contention and pleadings made, had filed Annexure P-7 which is order dated 05.09.2020 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, Health and Family Welfare Department and the order dated 10.12.2020 (amended order) to the order dated 05.09.2020. 7. From the pleadings made in the writ petition, it is apparent that mother of the petitioner took treatment as impatient from 22.09.2020 till 02.10.2020 in respondent No.6/Hospital. The final bill which is placed on record as Annexure P-1 is dated 02.10.2020 in which net bill amount is mentioned as Rs.4,51,469/-, which includes the charges under different heads. On the date of treatment in respondent No.-6/Hospital, according to petitioner himself, order dated 05.09.2020 was in force with the charges as mentioned therein based on the class of city. Respondent No.6/Hospital falls in Class- “A” city, for which rates are fixed as Rs.6,200/-, Rs. 12,0000/- and Rs.17,0000/- for moderate sickness, severe sickness, very severe sickness respectively. The period of treatment of petitioner's mother as impatient was about 10-11 days. The rates as mentioned in Annexure P-7 order dated 05.09.2020 mentions about the hospitalization rate per day of isolation beds, ICU without need for ventilator care and ICU with ventilator care. The petitioner in the present writ petition, has not specifically pleaded which amount, under which particular head, is exorbitant. So far as the claim of petitioner with regard to applicability of the amended order dated 10.12.2020 is concerned, it is of subsequent date than treatment as also issuance of bill. 8. Perusal of the report submitted by three Members Committee before the CMHO, Raipur (filed along with reply submitted by the State), would 6 / 7 show that the Committee has issued notice to petitioner for his appearance, to record his statement. However, he did not appear and further the Committee has observed that respondent No.6 /Hospital Management is ready to return back the nursing charges as it is part of bed charges as mentioned in Annexure P-7. 9. In the aforementioned facts of the case, except the amount which is admitted to be refunded by respondent No.6/Hospital Management i.e. nursing charges which is also included under bed charges of isolation bed, ICU without need for ventilator care and ICU with ventilator care, the petitioner would be entitled for refund of Rs.24,000/- as mentioned in Annexure P-1 towards nursing charges. 10. Insofar as the petitioner's claim for refund of the amount is concerned, the writ petition does not specifically disclose the particular head under which the amount is alleged to have been collected in violation of the orders issued by the State Government. In the opinion of this Court, the said claim involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, I find it appropriate to allow this writ petition in part and direct respondent No.6/Hospital to refund the amount of nursing charges of Rs.24,000/- as stated by the person represented respondent No.6/ Hospital Management before the Inquiry Committee (Three Doctors’ Committee). 12. It is ordered accordingly. 13. Respondent No.6/Hospital is directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,000/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy 7 / 7 of this order as also bank account number of petitioner. With respect to other claim, if any, petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen