HC warns Punjab govt of contempt over Wrong claim on specialist appointments

The warning was issued by the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry after taking on record an additional affidavit claiming that all 15 sanctioned posts of specialist doctors at the 130-bedded Malerkotla District Hospital had been filled.

The Indian Express has reported that the HC bench, while dictating its order in open court, noted that it was proceeding on the presumption that "all the 15 sanctioned posts of specialists have been filled and all 15 doctors have joined," as mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit by the State.

Referring to the State's affidavit, the bench clarified that if any discrepancy is later found in these assertions, the officer who swore the affidavit may be held liable for contempt.

The matter has been listed for further hearing after four weeks.

Also Read: HC pulls up Punjab Govt over Malerkotla Hospital facilities, imposes penalty

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that during the hearing of the PIL, the HC bench had previously slammed the Punjab Government and imposed a penalty of Rs 10,000 for delaying the course of justice after it submitted an incomplete affidavit regarding the medical facilities at the Malerkotla District Hospital.

The court had observed that the state government failed to provide complete information regarding the availability of CT and MRI scan services at the facility.

Furthermore, the court had also sought clarification on the government’s decision to outsource diagnostic services, such as CT scans, to private firms under the public-private partnership (PPP) model.

As per the latest media report by the Indian Express, now the Punjab and Haryana HC has warned the State of contempt if any discrepancies are found in its latest affidavit on the staffing and facilities at Malerkotla District Hospital. The warning came after the petitioner, Bhisham Kinger, appeared in person and disputed the State's claim.

The petitioner referred to the material on record (page 237 of R3) to argue that only one of the three recently appointed specialists, Dr Kalyani Goyal, had actually joined, while two others in medicine and gynaecology had not yet joined.

Apart from this, the petitioner also submitted that the State's assertion regarding "all 15 posts being filled" was misleading until and unless the actual joining had taken place.

Previously, the State's counsel, Salil Sabhlok, Senior Deputy Advocate General, had relied on the 2021 Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS) norms of the Union Health Ministry to defend the absence of CT and MRI machines at the hospital. Relying on page 101 of the IPHS catalogue, counsel argued that the CT and MRI facilities are categorised as "desirable" rather than "essential" for 100-200 bed hospitals, and they become essential only for 200-plus bed facilities.

In this regard, the bench asked when the policy was framed. In response, it was informed that the IPHS framework had been issued back in 2021. Further, the counsel submitted that being a 130-bed hospital, Malerkotla was not mandated to maintain either the CT or MRI machines, though the Government was "in the process of tendering" for a CT scan machine after the failure of a previous tender.

The bench also sought to know how far these diagnostic facilities were available. In response, the State submitted that CT and MRI services were accessible about 40 km away, including at the civil hospital in Raikot. 

However, the petitioner informed the bench that only six district hospitals across Punjab currently had MRI machines, since MRI is classified as desirable even for 500-bed hospitals.

Addressing the issue of staffing, the State submitted before the HC bench that 20 of the 39 medical officer posts at Malerkotla were filled, and that 1,000 medical officer appointments were underway statewide, with 700 appointment letters already issued. Regarding the issue of recruitment of specialist doctors, the State submitted that it was pending government approval and after the approval, advertisements would be issued.

However, the bench asked the State to clarify whether the 15 specialist positions had been filled by fresh recruitment or by transfers, a concern the court had repeatedly raised in earlier orders. In this regard, the State sought time to obtain instructions.

Accordingly, the bench directed the Punjab Government to file an additional affidavit and clarify whether all 15 specialists were appointed through fresh recruitment or transfers, the joining status of each appointee, and the details of infrastructure, equipment, and diagnostic machines available in district hospitals across Punjab, Haryana, and the UT of Chandigarh.

Further, the bench observed that past adjournments had already been granted to the State to produce complete information and it also said that it expected full compliance before the next date of hearing.

Also Read: 'Highly Disturbing': HC pulls up Haryana govt for action against doctor who didn't stand up during MLA visit, slaps Rs 50k cost