HC Refuses to Stay Case Against Hospital

Hyderabad:A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court refused to stay proceedings against KIMS Hospital in a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, arising out of the death of a patient following spinal surgery. The panel comprising Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar refused interim relief to the hospital, which challenged orders of the consumer fora rejecting its request to obtain an expert opinion from a government neurosurgeon before adjudication of the complaint. The panel was hearing a writ petition filed by KIMS Hospital assailing an order of the Telangana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the revision petition of the hospital against an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The dispute originates from a consumer complaint filed by the family members of a patient who underwent an L2-L3 discectomy, a spinal disc surgery, at the hospital in April 2021. According to the complainants, complications arose following the discharge of the patient from the hospital. It was alleged that when the family approached the hospital for further treatment, they were informed that no beds were available and were advised to discontinue a particular medication. The patient subsequently died. The complainants alleged that the surgery was undertaken without obtaining the opinion of a cardiologist and an anaesthetist and contended that the hospital failed to exercise the requisite standard of medical care. They sought compensation of `1 crore along with reimbursement of medical and funeral expenses. During the proceedings before the district commission, the hospital filed an application seeking referral of the medical records to the neurosurgery department of a government hospital for an independent expert opinion on whether any deficiency in service could be attributed to the treating doctors. The application was dismissed. Aggrieved, the hospital approached the State Consumer Commission by way of a revision petition, which was also dismissed. Counsel for the complainants submitted that the consumer complaint already reached the stage of final arguments and that the proceedings ought not to be delayed further. It was contended that no urgency or exceptional circumstance existed warranting a stay of the proceedings before the consumer forum.

No probe into roller skating fed.

Justice Renuka Yara of the Telangana High Court dismissed an implead petition in a writ plea seeking an inquiry into the affairs of the Roller-Skating Federation of India (RSFI). The Roller-Skating Association of Telangana filed the writ petition alleging financial irregularities, fraudulent issuance of international merit certificates, irregular grant of memberships to state associations and inaction by the Centre and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) on representations it had submitted. The Roller-Skating Association of Telangana (RSAT), a rival body, moved an application stating that it was recognised by the RSFI and the IOA, while the writ petitioner stood de-affiliated. It alleged suppression of material facts by the writ petitioner for not disclosing an earlier writ petition and a pending original petition before the City Civil Court concerning recognition and affiliation disputes. The applicant argued that its presence was necessary to place the true facts before the court. The writ petitioner opposed the application, contending that the present writ plea was confined to allegations of financial irregularities, corruption, fake certificates and other illegalities in RSFI and did not concern affiliation disputes. The judge ruled that the dispute relating to affiliation of the implead petitioner and de-affiliation of the writ petitioner was pending before the civil court and was immaterial to decide the issues in the present writ petition. The judge observed that the reliefs sought in the writ petition related exclusively to alleged financial irregularities, fraudulent certificates, memberships and governance issues in RSFI. Hence it was neither a necessary nor a proper party for deciding those issues.

Plea seeking land record change spiked

Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court dismissed a writ plea seeking correction of revenue entries over 38 acres of land in Gandamguda, holding that the claim was made after an unexplained lapse of nearly 68 years. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Toorpu Sanjeeva Reddy and others. The petitioners contended that their ancestors were granted pattadar rights over 38.10 acres by the then district collector, Atraf Balda, in 1950, but only 30.29 acres was reflected in the revenue records, leaving the balance extent unrecorded. They sought correction of entries relating to 3.14 acres out of the remaining land. The state opposed the plea, contending that the land stood classified as sarkari poramboke in revenue records since 1954-55. The judge noted that the petitioners approached the authorities for correction of entries only from 2011 onwards and failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the delay of over six decades.

HC relief for Panjagutta temple

Justice Surepalli Nanda of the Telangana High Court restrained the endowments department from interfering with the administration of Sri Durga Bhavani Temple, Panjagutta. The temple management committee filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that interference was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of constitutional protections. Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the temple was a 70-year-old institution and was managed by the mandir committee. It was argued that the temple did not fall within the purview of the endowments department and that a title dispute concerning the land on which the temple stood was pending between the temple and the Telangana Housing Board. Counsel contended that despite the pending title dispute, the department initiated steps to assert administrative control over the temple, including by proposing appointment of an executive officer. The petitioner alleged that officials entered the temple premises and demanded production of account books and details relating to temple jewellery. It was argued that the department could not assume jurisdiction over the temple merely on the basis that financial assistance of `91,000 was sanctioned in 1991 for construction of a Durga pandal. Opposing the plea, the government pleader submitted that the temple was notified under Section 6(c) of the Act and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the department. It was contended that if the petitioner disputed the applicability of the Endowments Act, the proper remedy was to approach the Endowments Tribunal and that the writ petition itself was not maintainable. The court recorded the willingness of the petitioner to pursue remedies before the competent quasi-judicial authority in relation to the title dispute with the Telangana Housing Board. Pending further consideration of the matter, the judge directed the respondents not to interfere with the administration and management of the petitioner temple and the mandir committee running it. The matter was posted to July 8 for filing of counters by the respondents.