The Department of the Medical and Pharmaceutical Control Committee on the recognition of illegal and cancellation of the regulation on the elimination of violations
No. 6001-24-00-6ap/3114ot on May 13, 2025
The plaintiff: GKP na PHV "City multidisciplinary hospital"
(hereinafter referred to as the Hospital).
Respondent: Russian State Institution "Department of the Committee for Medical and Pharmaceutical Control of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan" (hereinafter referred to as the Department).
The subject of the dispute: on the recognition of illegal and cancellation of the regulation on the elimination of violations No. 102 dated December 26, 2023.
Review of the defendant's cassation complaint
PLOT: according to the complaint of patient M.K., the Department conducted an unscheduled inspection of the Hospital on the basis of the inspection appointment act
No. 79 dated October 12, 2023.
By the Inspection Results Act No. 79 dated October 27, 2023, M.K.'s complaint was declared unfounded due to his non-compliance with and violation of the hospital regime, which contributed to the development of postoperative purulent complications. The development of the resulting postoperative purulent complications is due to the multiplicity and severity of open chest wounds.
Disagreeing with these results, on December 8, 2023, M.K. again filed a complaint with the Department.
Based on the act on the appointment of an audit dated December 13, 2023, the Department conducted a second audit, which resulted in an act on the results of the audit identifying violations and an order to eliminate violations No. 102 dated December 26, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the Order).
Having disagreed with the Order, the Hospital appealed to the court with the above requirement.
Judicial acts:
1st instance: the claim is satisfied.
Appeal: the decision of the court of first instance remains unchanged.
Cassation: the decision of the court of first instance and the decision of the appeal are upheld.
Conclusions: when satisfying the claim, the courts reasonably proceeded from the following.
According to paragraph 6) of Article 151 of the PC, when conducting preventive control with a visit to the subject (object) of control and supervision and (or) inspection, officials of the control and supervision body are not entitled to conduct preventive control with a visit to the subject (object) of control and supervision and (or) inspection of the subject (object) of control and supervision, in relation to which previously carried out preventive control with a visit to the subject (object) of control and supervision and (or) an inspection by a higher (lower) body or other state body on the same issue for the same period, with the exception of the cases provided for in the sub-paragraphs 2-1), 3), 4), 5), 6), 7) and 8) paragraph 5 of Article 144 of this Code.
The examination and comparison by the courts of M.K.'s two appeals, as well as the medical documents attached to the repeated application, showed that M.K.'s last appeal did not contain any new arguments. The computed tomography result presented by him should not have been accepted by the defendant as new evidence, since M.K. underwent chest X-rays and computed tomography during treatment.
As the courts correctly pointed out, conducting a repeat check on the same issue for the same period, according to part 2 of Article 156 of the PC, is classified as a gross violation of the PC, therefore it is considered invalid.
The author of the complaint's disagreement with the results of the audit cannot serve as a basis for conducting a second audit.
The arguments of the courts are set out in detail in the contested judicial acts. All the arguments of the author of the cassation appeal in their content,
The meaning and purpose are identical to the arguments given in the courts of the first and appellate instances. These arguments were reviewed by the court of appeal and given a proper legal assessment. No new arguments are given in the cassation appeal.
Since the circumstances of the case have been established correctly, and the rules of law have been applied correctly by the court of appeal, the collegium finds no grounds for revoking or amending the judicial act.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
