1 CGHC010055132023 2026:CGHC:41186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 794 of 2023 Sanjay Ambast S/o Mohan Gopal Ambast Aged About 53 Years Occupation Advocate R/o Suman Sadan, Darripara Ambikapur, District : Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Medical Education, D. K. S. Bhawan Parisar, Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Health Services Directorate Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Health Services Raipur Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Director Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Aurobindo Enclave, Pachpedi Naka, Dhamtari Road, N H- 43 Raipur 492001 SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY Date: 2026.09.29 19:27:12 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/ State For Respondent No.5 : : Ms. Akansha Verma Dabadkar, Panel Lawyer Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in failing to conduct an inquiry into the death of the mother of the petitioner. The deceased passed away due to the unauthorized and non- consensual administration of a Remdesivir injection by the Respondent-Hospital during her treatment for COVID-19, despite informed consent being denied by the petitioner/his family. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : 1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to conduct enquiry with a team of specialist doctors of three members in pursuance of letter dated 10/03/2022 (ANNEXURE P/4) against Respondent No.5 on account of death of mother of the petitioner owing to 3 administration of Remdesivir injection and thereafter take appropriate action against the erring personnel. 2. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 22.09.2020, the petitioner admitted his mother (aged 65 years) to Respondent No. 5- Hospital for treatment of COVID-19. At the time of admission, the patient presented mild infection with a CT Severity Score of 4/25. Given her co-morbid conditions i.e.chronic liver disease and diabetes, the petitioner withheld consent for and specifically requested the non-administration of the investigational drug Remdesivir. In direct defiance of the petitioner’s refusal and withholding of consent, the attending doctors at Respondent No. 5 Hospital administered Remdesivir to the deceased. After the unauthorized administration of the said drug, the medical condition of the patient rapidly deteriorated, culminating in her death on 02.10.2020. The State Government vide order dated 18.09.2020 had capped treatment rates for COVID-19 patients and appointed a Nodal Officer to monitor compliance. Respondent No. 5- Hospital arbitrarily flouted these regulatory guidelines by charging Rs.50,000/- per day instead of the prescribed rate of Rs.6,200/- per day for moderate care, alongwith inflated 4 diagnostic fees Rs10,657/- for HRCT plus an additional Rs.3,600/- as radiologist fees. Aggrieved by the unconsented treatment and exorbitant overcharging, the petitioner submitted representations to various high authorities. On 22.02.2021, the Chief Medical & Health Officer (CMHO), Raipur requested the Director of Health Services to constitute a specialist medical team for enquiry. On 31.1.2022, the Director of Health Services directed the Joint Director, Health Services to conduct an inquiry and submit a report along with opinion. Thereafter, on 10.3.2022, the Director of Health Services wrote to the Director of Medical Education (DME) to form a 3-member committee of specialist doctors. Despite these internal communications and administrative directions, no official enquiry was ever convened or concluded, leaving the petitioner's grievances unaddressed. After the death of his mother, the petitioner pursued legal remedies through multiple proceedings alleging medical negligence and administrative lapses against Respondent No. 5 -Hospital. The majority of these matters stand adjudicated, wherein partial financial relief (refund/compensation of Rs.24,000/-) was directed in one proceeding, while related administrative allegations were considered by this Court in connected petitions. The events occurred during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was a period marked by rapidly evolving, empirical treatment protocols, where definitive clinical standards or specific therapeutic drugs had not yet been universally established by global health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO). 5 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the continuous and persistent inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to conclude the enquiry, despite clear intra-departmental directions dated 22.02.2021, 31.01.2022, and 10.03.2022 issued by senior health officials, is wholly arbitrary and illegal. He submits that Respondent No. 5 -Hospital committed a grave act of medical negligence by administering the investigational drug Remdesivir to the deceased (a 65-year-old diabetic and chronic liver patient). He further submits that Respondent No. 5 -Hospital violated the State Government's price-capping order dated 18.09.2020 by extorting Rs.50,000/- per day instead of the prescribed Rs.6,200/- per day along with charging inflated fees for HRCT and radiology. He further submits that despite submitting several representations to various high authorities, no effective action has been taken by the respondent authorities. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the grievances raised by the petitioner regarding medical negligence, lack of informed consent and billing disputes involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner possesses statutory remedies under the Chhattisgarh Nursing Homes Act, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or a civil suit, rendering this petition non-maintainable. He submits that the State has acted bona fide and promptly. He further submits that intra- departmental communications dated 22.02.2021, 31.01.2022, and 10.03.2022 would show that the administrative inquiry process 6 was set in motion. He also submits that complex administrative and expert medical evaluations post-pandemic naturally require reasonable time and do not amount to wilful or deliberate inaction. Furthermore, clinical decisions made under Emergency Use Authorization during the peak of an evolving pandemic in September 2020 require expert evidence and complete record analysis. He lastly submits that the petition suffers from delay and laches, having been filed in 2023 for an incident occurring on 02.10.2020. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submits that the present writ petition is barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata and constitutes a blatant abuse of the judicial process, as the petitioner has repeatedly filed successive writ petitions bearing WPC Nos. 2953/2020, 2653/2021, 2375/2021 and 794/2023 on the exact same cause of action relating to the death of his mother. He submits that while disposing of WPC No. 2653/2021, this Court categorically observed that issues of alleged medical negligence and the clinical necessity of Remdesivir administration involve disputed questions of fact that cannot be tested under writ jurisdiction, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Suresh Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in AIR 2004 SC 4091. Furthermore, in WPC No. 2375/2021 (Sanjay Ambastha v. State of C.G. & Ors.) involving identical reliefs against Respondent No. 5, this Court vide Order dated 28.07.2026 disposed of the matter by partially allowing it only to the extent of directing a refund of Rs.24,000/- towards nursing 7 charges, while reiterating that the remaining allegations involved disputed factual questions beyond the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution. He submits that Respondent No. 5 extended proper care to the patient strictly in accordance with established clinical protocols and Remdesivir was administered in full compliance with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Notification dated 27.06.2020 and WHO directives. Although treatment records reflect that the patient was clinically stable, she developed sudden hypertension and cardiac complications on the midnight of 02.10.2020, whereupon, CPR was immediately initiated, but despite all best efforts by treating specialists, she succumbed to sudden cardiac arrest as recorded in the Death Summary. Therefore, the allegations of medical negligence are baseless and the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Evidently, the petitioner's grievance stems entirely from the medical treatment and unfortunate death of his mother in September–October 2020, an issue that has already been repeatedly re-agitated through successive writ petitions bearing WPC Nos. 2953/2020, 2653/2021, 2375/2021 and 794/2023. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has repeatedly instituted successive proceedings arising out of the exact same underlying facts and grievances. The doctrine of constructive res judicata precludes a litigant from re-agitating the same cause of 8 action or raising grounds that ought to have been raised and settled in earlier proceedings on the same subject matter. In WPC No. 2653/2021 (order dated 2.7.2021) and subsequently in WPC No. 2375/2021 (order dated 28.07.2026), this Court has already dealt with the subject matter. While granting partial relief regarding the refund of Rs.24,000/- towards nursing charges, this Court observed vide order dated 28.7.2026 that allegations concerning medical negligence, the appropriateness or consent regarding Remdesivir and billing disputes involve complex, disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in summary writ proceedings. Framing the prayer as seeking a direction for an "administrative enquiry" into these identical facts is an impermissible attempt to bypass earlier judicial findings. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that adjudicating allegations of medical negligence requires detailed medical evidence, expert testimony and rigorous cross-examination. Such an intricate factual evaluation cannot be undertaken by a Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In my view, the appropriate forum for resolving grievances involving medical negligence, lack of informed consent or billing irregularities lies before Civil Courts, Consumer Redressal Commissions or specialized authorities under the Chhattisgarh Nursing Homes Act, where detailed evidence can be recorded rather than through repeated writ proceedings. 10. Moreover, the events in question occurred in September 2020 9 during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, when clinicians operated under evolving Emergency Use Authorizations and rapidly shifting medical protocols. Seeking to re-open these factual issues by filing a writ petition in 2023, after earlier petitions on the same cause of action have already been adjudicated, suffers from gross delay and laches. 11. Undeniably, the Petitioner suffered irreparable loss of his mother during the distressing circumstances of the pandemic. However, personal grief and emotional pain, profound as they may be, cannot override settled principles of law. The law does not permit a litigant to repeatedly re-agitate settled causes of action under the guise of fresh administrative remedies when previous petitions on the same underlying facts have already been adjudicated. 12. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds no cogent ground to re- open issues already settled in earlier proceedings. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shyna Ajay