The Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday resumed hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the legality and regulatory compliance of 31 hospitals in Indore.
As directed during the previous hearing, petitioner Advocate Charchit Shastri submitted his rejoinder before the court. In it, he made serious allegations against Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) Dr Madhav Hasani, accusing him of misleading the court and submitting an inaccurate investigation report to protect hospitals allegedly operating in violation of regulations.
The allegations are part of the petitioner’s rejoinder and have not been established by the court.
Petitioner alleges investigation report does not reflect facts
In his rejoinder, Shastri claimed that the investigation report submitted by the CMHO did not accurately reflect the facts on the ground.
He alleged that the actual situation had been concealed and that the report was prepared in a manner that could provide relief to hospitals allegedly violating regulatory requirements.
Claims forged documents were submitted in court
Along with the rejoinder, the petitioner reportedly submitted documents that he alleged were forged, as well as records concerning hospitals allegedly operating without valid registration.
The petition claims that some hospitals were functioning without the mandatory statutory permissions and registrations, while the documents submitted to the court allegedly presented a different picture.
Several serious allegations raised during previous hearing
During the previous hearing on Tuesday, the petitioner had alleged that the CMHO submitted an inspection report covering 34 institutions instead of the 31 hospitals named in the PIL.
He had also alleged that purportedly forged orders related to the sealing of Vinayak Pathology Lab and Lady Halima Hospital were placed on record.
The petitioner further claimed that some hospitals had submitted building-permission documents to the court based on allegedly forged affidavits issued in the name of the municipal corporation.
Court had directed protection for petitioner
During the previous hearing, Advocate Charchit Shastri told the court that he had allegedly faced pressure and attempts to attack him after filing the PIL.
The High Court subsequently directed the state government to ensure his security, observing that providing protection to the petitioner was the responsibility of the state.
Court to consider rejoinder and supporting documents
The case will now proceed on the basis of the rejoinder and documents submitted on Thursday.
The High Court is expected to examine the allegations and records placed before it before passing its next order.
