PMJAY ‘racket’ case: Gujarat court denies bail to Khyati hospital CEO, cardiologist

Thakkar submitted, “After angiography he (Vazirani) found nine patients were normal and 10 had coronary artery disease and he advised only seven patients for angioplasty. The two patients developed complications which are known and inherent in procedure and there is no negligence or rash act…There is nothing in the post-mortem report that there was damage to the heart or death was caused on account of angioplasty performed on them.” Thakkar also argued that Vazirani was “not a beneficiary of the monetary consideration received by the hospital under PMJAY Scheme.”

Advocate H S Raval, representing Jain, submitted to the court that as the CEO, Jain has been made an accused “applying vicarious liability” and there is no prima-facie evidence against the applicant. Jain, who has been CEO of Khyati Multi Speciality Hospital since September 2020, submitted that he has “no connection with medical and clinical procedure or marketing of the hospital or the claims under PMJAY scheme” as the decisions in the regard “are taken at Director level”. The defence lawyer also contended that the prosecution case that Jain had prepared audit reports showing loss of the hospital were false as “the alleged audit report is uploaded by Kothari and Gupta Chartered Accountants on ROC and MCO website” and there is no role of Jain in managing the software that made the alleged false entry reports.

Opposing the bail pleas of both Vazirani and Jain, Special Public Prosecutor Vijay Barot told the court that Vazirani is a visiting doctor who performed angiography and angioplasty on the patients. Barot submitted, “Though seven patients had normal blockage, a blockage of 70% to 90% was shown in the diagram and uploaded on the PMJAY portal for taking benefit of the scheme. Fear was created in the minds of the patients and relatives… putting them under threat of an emergency medical situation, consent was obtained for angioplasty and patients were made to undergo angioplasty and stents were implanted…”

In Jain’s application, Barot told the court that “his job was to bring more and more patients to the hospital and the local doctors who were referring patients to the hospital were paid referring commission, which was managed by (Jain).” Submitting that Jain had been part of the meetings held in the chairman’s office to discuss how to increase the business of the hospital and bring more patients under the government scheme, Barot also submitted that Jain, along with the directors “was forcing the operating doctors to make patients undergo angiography /angioplasty operation to earn money.”

The court, in its order, has cited “interest of justice” and rejected both bail applications.

In case of Vazirani’s plea, the Principal District and Sessions Judge K M Sojitra said, “It prima-facie appears that applicant as treating/operating doctor has adopted unethical medical practice to earn illegal money along with co-accused persons. The offence prima-facie is not only pertaining to illegal gain of money by adopting unethical practice but has also ingredients of tampering with the health of the people which contains more seriousness and gravity of offence.”

Rejecting Jain’s bail plea, the court said, “The investigation reveals that (Jain) was insisting the Doctors to conduct more and more angiography and angioplasty. (Jain) had made a procedure of registration of the Hospital under the PM-JAY scheme. As per the affidavit of the Investigating Officer, (Jain) and Directors used to ask the Chartered Accountant of the hospital to prepare a false audit report. As per the IO, a CA has been appointed to verify the financial manipulations made by the hospital and after verification, a report will be prepared and submitted…”

From the homepage

‘She wanted to resign’: BLO dies by suicide, her family in Bengal alleges ‘work pressure’

MP’s elite Hawk Force loses decorated officer in encounter with armed Maoists

Who is Anmol Bishnoi? 5 things about the gangster extradited to India from US