Association Of Health Care vs. State Of Tamilnadu

Held

The Court noted that when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought in the Writ Petition had become infructuous. Recording this submission, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. No order was made as to costs. The Court did not delve into the merits of the challenge to the letter dated December 21, 2017, nor did it decide on the appointment of an expert committee for costing, as the petitioner themselves stated the matter had become infructuous. The specific reasons why the relief became infructuous were not recorded.

Facts

The petitioner, Association of Health Care Providers India (AHPI), Tamil Nadu Chapter, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated December 21, 2017, issued by the State of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department. The petitioner sought to quash this letter and requested the State to appoint an expert committee to determine the costing for medical and surgical procedures in hospitals across Tamil Nadu, specifically for procedures covered under the Chief Minister Comprehensive Health Insurance Schemes. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents included the State of Tamil Nadu (Health and Family Welfare Department and Ministry of Finance) and numerous hospitals.

Key Issues

1. Whether the letter dated December 21, 2017, issued by the first respondent is illegal and arbitrary, warranting its quashing? 2. Whether the first respondent should be directed to appoint an expert committee to conduct costing for medical and surgical procedures in hospitals in Tamil Nadu for procedures covered under the Chief Minister Comprehensive Health Insurance Schemes? The petitioner argued that the impugned letter was illegal and arbitrary and sought a direction for the appointment of an expert committee for costing. The respondents, the State of Tamil Nadu, were represented by the Special Government Pleader. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue or State regarding the legality of the letter or the necessity of appointing an expert committee. The judgment also does not record any arguments from the impleaded hospital respondents.