Hospital registration does not exempt clinical establishments from continuing statutory compliance and periodic inspection.

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 6, Sparsh Multispeciality Hospital, was engaging unqualified persons to provide medical treatment and was prescribing or administering medicines beyond their permissible scope of practice. She challenged the alleged inaction of the competent authorities and sought an inquiry and appropriate action against the Hospital.

On 20.04.2026, the High Court directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Sakti, to verify the allegations and file an affidavit.

The CMHO stated that the Hospital had obtained registration under the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagrih Tatha Rogopachar Sambandhi Sthapanai Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010, and that its renewal application was pending.

A three-member inspection team inspected the Hospital on 06.04.2026 and reported that the prescribed facilities and medical practitioners were available in accordance with the applicable standards.

The Hospital was stated to have doctors possessing MD, MS and MBBS qualifications, besides a BAMS-qualified doctor.

However, proceedings concerning Dr. Roopnarayan Sahu remained pending.

The Court applied the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagrih Tatha Rogopachar Sambandhi Sthapanai Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 2010, which regulates the licensing and registration of nursing homes and clinical establishments, including renewal of registration under Section 22.

It also applied the Chhattisgarh State Upcharyagriha Tatha Rogopchar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Anugyapan Niyam, 2013, framed under Section 18(1) of the 2010 Act.

Rule 10 and the prescribed hospital and nursing-home standards require, among other things, availability of medical practitioners, adequate resident or general-duty medical officers, emergency medical support, requisite infrastructure, and lawful biomedical-waste disposal.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that a clinical establishment must continuously maintain the prescribed statutory standards and remains subject to inspection and regulatory action for deficiencies or violations.

The Court considered the CMHO’s affidavit and the inspection conducted pursuant to the Hospital’s application for renewal.

The inspection team had specifically examined the Hospital’s facilities and the qualifications and availability of its medical practitioners and found compliance with the standards under the 2013 Rules.

The disclosed presence of doctors with MD, MS and MBBS qualifications, along with a BAMS-qualified doctor, substantially addressed the petitioner’s allegation that the Hospital was operating without qualified doctors.

Consequently, the grievance concerning the Hospital’s present functioning and alleged non-compliance did not survive for further adjudication in the writ proceedings.

Nevertheless, because proceedings relating to Dr. Roopnarayan Sahu were pending, and because statutory compliance must be continuing rather than one-time, the Court directed the competent authorities to conclude those proceedings and required continued monitoring and periodic inspection of the Hospital.

It directed the competent authority to bring the proceedings concerning Dr. Roopnarayan Sahu to their logical conclusion, strictly in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within four weeks from receipt of the order.

The CMHO, Sakti, was directed to ensure that Respondent No. 6 continued to maintain the prescribed standards, infrastructure and availability of duly qualified medical practitioners, and that the Hospital remained subject to periodic inspection.

Any future deficiency or violation was to be rectified within the prescribed time, failing which appropriate legal action could be taken.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.