Case: MAHAVIR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

the Petitioner. Thereafter, a compliance verification assessment was conducted on 13.03.2018. The Executive Committee of the Council considered the compliance verification assessment report dated 13.03.2018, the previous assessment report dated 8th & 9th November, 2017 along with photographs, videography as well as the representation dated 14.03.2018 of the Dean of the Petitioner College and noted the following deficiencies: 1. Deficiency of faculty is 22% as detailed in the report. 2. Shortage of Residents was 42.85% as detailed in the report. 3. Patients in PICU: - PICU has three patients. Two patients Swathi and Aravin have admitted with history of Chronic pain abdomen for more than 10 days. Patients with mi nor problems admitted without even as IV line in the ICCU. No coronary ailment patient is admitted in the ICCU. SICU has only routine post operative patients including tubectomy, with no complications. Nursing station not available in the SICU. 4. Wards:- In Surgery ward 2 male and 4 female post operative patients are admitted for more than 10 days with no fresh complaints. Four patients who are admitted as inpatient have no personal belongings nor any attendant with them. They were admitted for complaints like Gastritis, vague abdominal pain and are on oral drugs. Out of 60 patients, 10 patients do not merit as teaching bed patients. Hence, teaching beds are counted as 50. Obstetrics wards has 6 post natal patients. Hence out of 28 patients in Obstetrics & Gynecology ward, only 22 are counted as teaching beds. Last date of delivery is 9.3.2018. Ortho ward out of 21 patients 4 are purely admitted for physiotherapy and one patient is continuing to have native treatment slab for alleged fracture even after 10 days of ad mission. Hence, only 16 patients are taken as teaching beds are taken as teaching beds. Dermatology, psychiatry and TB Chest patients are put together in a single open ward and no separate wards available. 5. There was NIL Normal Delivery on day of assessment as well as on preceding 3 days. 6. Date of Histopathology does not correlate with number of Major & Minor Operations. 7. Request slips for issue of blood are not available prior to 09/03/2018. 8. Casualty: There were only 4 patients at the time of visit. Crash Cart is not maintained. Disaster Trolley is not available. Emergency O.T. attached to Casualty shows last procedure on 02/03/02018 - i.e. 11 days before assessment. 9. Other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. 3. The Executive Committee of the Council decided to recommend to the Government of India to invoke Regulation 8(3)(1)(a) of the Establishment of Medical College Regulations, 1999 and disapprove the application of the Petitioner College for renewal of permission for the third batch of 150 students in MBBS course for the academic year 2018-2019. The decision of the Executive Committee of the Council was approved by the Oversight Committee on 28.03.2018. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.487 of 2018 which was disposed of on 23.05.2018 directing the Union of India to consider the material to be submitted by the Petitioner before taking a final decision. After considering the contention of the Petitioner that the inspection was not conducted in accordance with the Assessors Guide 2018-2019, the Government of India found no reason to discard the report of the Assessors. By an order dated 31.05.2018, the Government of India accepted the recommendation of the Medical Council of India that the Petitioner was not entitled for renewal of permission for admission to third batch of 150 students in MBBS Course for the academic year 2018-2019. Aggrieved thereby, the above Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner-College. 4. We have heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India and Mr. Vikas Singh learned Senior Counsel for the MCI. Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the inspection conducted on 13.03.2018 was in violation of the Assessors Guide 2018-2019. According to him, the attendance was taken by one Assessor at 10:20 am which concluded at 11:00 am. The clinical staff could report only at 11:15 am as they were on duty in the O.T., Labour Room, Procedure Room, ICUs, Casualty etc. in the hospital. He also submitted that it was impermissible for the Assessors to give their opinion regarding the genuineness of the inpatients. 5. This Court is not equipped to adjudicate a factual dispute regarding the existence of staff, patients, clinical material and other facilities in a medical college and hospital. Deference has to be shown to findings of an expert body, which has found that the facilities in the Petitioner-College are inadequate. Unless there is a jurisdictional error or ex facie perversity in an inspection report, this Court will not interfere with a decision taken on the basis of recommendation of an expert body. See Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Others, 2016 (11) SCC 530. 6. After considering the submissions of the Petitioner and the material on record, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Government of India not to grant approval does not warrant interference. The Assessors after a physical inspection, found that a number of patients were not genuine. The Assessors were of the opinion that patients with minor ailments were admitted in the hospital. There were others who were shown as patients with no serious health condition deserving an admission in the hospital. This was done by the Petitioner with a view to get renewal for admission of students by showing that it was complying with the minimum standards. The Petitioner is guilty of deception and fraud. 7. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as he does not meet the required standards for renewal of permission for admission to third batch of MBBS students. We take serious note of the fraud played by the Petitioner in projecting healthy persons as patients in their hospital for the purpose of showing compliance of the minimum standards.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. This Court is not equipped to adjudicate a factual dispute regarding the existence of staff, patients, clinical material and other facilities in a medical college and hospital. Deference has to be shown to findings of an expert body, which has found that the facilities in the Petitioner-College are inadequate. Unless there is a jurisdictional error or ex facie perversity in an inspection report, this Court will not interfere with a decision taken on the basis of recommendation of an expert body. See Medical Council of India Vs. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and Others, 2016 (11) SCC 530.  6. After considering the submissions of the Petitioner and the material on record, we are of the opinion that the decision of the Government of India not to grant approval does not warrant interference. The Assessors after a physical inspection, found that a number of patients were not genuine. The Assessors were of the opinion that patients with minor ailments were admitted in the hospital. There were others who were shown as patients with no serious health condition deserving an admission in the hospital. This was done by the Petitioner with a view to get renewal for admission of students by showing that it was complying with the minimum standards. The Petitioner is guilty of deception and fraud.7. The Petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as he does not meet the required standards for renewal of permission for admission to third batch of MBBS students. We take serious note of the fraud played by the Petitioner in projecting healthy persons as patients in their hospital for the purpose of showing compliance of the minimum standards.