The truth behind the alleged illegal oocyte sale in Erode district cannot be unearthed unless the private hospital involved in the case is given a fair opportunity of hearing by the Directorate of Medical and Rural Health Services before initiating action under various medical enactments, the Madras High Court has said.
Justice Abdul Quddhose wrote: “There may be several newspaper reports regarding instances of violations that is said to have taken place in the petitioner hospitals (Sudha Hospitals represented by K. Sudhakar). But that cannot be used as a piece of evidence unless it is substantiated by oral and documentary evidence.”
He set aside the action taken against the hospital without affording it an opportunity of hearing, and directed the Joint Director of Health Services in Erode to afford a fair hearing to the private hospital management by permitting it to produce necessary documents, records and witnesses in support of its case. Such hearing must be completed and final orders must be passed within 12 weeks, he added.
Supervision allowed
Further, directing government officials to de-seal the medical equipment in the hospital, the judge, however, made it clear that the Directorate could depute a panel of doctors to supervise the functioning of the hospital during the inquiry period.
The judge agreed with senior counsel A.L. Somayaji that the Joint Director ought not to have taken drastic action against the hospital by instructing it to discharge all patients within two weeks and not to admit new patients, without assigning any reason and without even issuing a show-cause notice.
When a government counsel told the court that the action was initiated following media reports of oocytes having been received on multiple occasions from a 16-year-old girl by faking her Aadhaar card and falsely claiming that she was over 21-years-old, the senior counsel said none of these allegations found place in the Joint Director’s proceedings.
The proceedings simply stated that actions were being initiated against the hospitals under Section 20(3) of Pre Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act of 1994 and Sections 5(2) and 6(1) of the Tamil Nadu Clinical Establishments (Regulation) Act of 1997 in public interest and nothing more, the counsel said.
