Alleged Misuse of ₹8 Crore from Scheme Funds, Pressure on Doctors to Perform Unnecessary Procedures
Ahmedabad: The Ahmedabad Rural District and Sessions Court on Tuesday rejected the regular bail plea of Kartik Patel, Chairman of Khyati Multispeciality Hospital, who is currently in judicial custody over his alleged involvement in the deaths of two PM-JAY (Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana) beneficiaries following botched angioplasty procedures. The court held that Patel played a central role in the misuse of government health scheme funds, including the diversion of ₹8 crore towards loan repayments instead of patient care.
According to the prosecution, the hospital submitted 3,578 claims under PM-JAY between March 2022 and November 2024, earning ₹16.64 crore. Out of this, ₹8 crore was allegedly used to repay a bank loan, reportedly in connection with plans to open a new hospital in Naroda. The court observed that under Patel’s chairmanship, meetings were held where unethical targets were set for doctors to bring in more patients under the PM-JAY scheme.
While Patel’s lawyers argued for bail on the grounds of parity, citing that co-accused individuals including non-executive directors and the CEO had been granted bail by the Gujarat High Court, the Sessions Court dismissed the plea. The bench held that the “seriousness and gravity” of the offence, along with Patel’s alleged role in conspiracy and unethical practices, made him ineligible for bail at this stage.
Key witness testimony significantly influenced the court’s decision. Dr Jeet Brahmbhatt, a cardiologist at the hospital, testified that he was pressured to admit patients who did not require procedures. He alleged that his salary was withheld when he resisted these unethical practices, and that Patel personally signed cheques for referral incentives given to doctors. The court also noted that 91% of the hospital’s income was generated from PM-JAY claims, indicating a systematic exploitation of the government health scheme.
Judge K.M. Sojitra, in the detailed order, stated that Patel not only held over 51% shareholding in the hospital but also chaired regular strategy meetings, thereby demonstrating active involvement in the hospital’s operations. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that granting bail would not be appropriate and accordingly dismissed the application.
