Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 346 (PAT)

Raj Kumar Devi v. State Of Bihar

2003-03-27

SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2003
Judgment 1. Present writ application has been filed for quashing the letter no. 1376(14) dated 28.2.2002 issued under the signature of Deputy Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, whereby and whereunder by only sanctioning medical expenditure of Rs. 65,805.31 further amount of Rs. 46,997.69 has been directed to be readjusted as unutilised amount and recovery of the same has been directed. The aforesaid letter is contained in Annexure-16. 2. A further prayer has been made for actual re-imbursement of entire expenditure which has been accrued due to medical treatment on the husband of writ petitioner as certified by Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow (hereinafter to be referred to as S.G.P.G.I.Lucknow). 3. The short facts of the present case is that the petitioners husband was an employee of the State Government in the Health Department and vide Annexure-1 on 20.7.1998 he through the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Nawada applied for sanction of amount of Rs. 2 lacs for getting his kidney replaced. The aforesaid letter was duly recommended by the doctor of P.M.C.H. for his treatment outside the State of Bihar. From Annexure-2 it would transpire that the Additional Secretary to the Government vide its memo no.1652 dated 3.6.1999 wrote to the Accountant General, Bihar approving the treatment of the deceased employee in special circumstances in All India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter to be referred to as A.I.I.M.S.) Delhi and further wrote that expenses incurred on the treatment of the petitioners husband be reimbursed after production of countersigned bills and vouchers. In view of report of the experts at A.I.I.M.S., Delhi as the petitioner had to proceed for his treatment and transplanation to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow he while proceeding for the same applied to the State Government on 7.10.1999 for approval of the same. The aforesaid application is Annexure-3. However, after the treatment of the petitioner at Lucknow as it was found out that there was chronic renal failure and as due to renal diseases the kidney transplanation could not take place and the deceased was advised to. remain on continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis because of hypertension, diabetic, age factor and the expenditure borne thereon was duly certified by the doctor and as it was contended that only after the aforesaid renal diseases were diagnosed, transplanation of kidney could be done. remain on continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis because of hypertension, diabetic, age factor and the expenditure borne thereon was duly certified by the doctor and as it was contended that only after the aforesaid renal diseases were diagnosed, transplanation of kidney could be done. It would not be out of place to mention here that vide Annexure-5 series the Additional Secretary to the Government vide its memo no. 366 dated 4.2.2000 wrote to the Accountant General, Bihar sanctioning Rs. 1,12,000/- as an advance for treatment and further directing that the amount spent on the treatment be reimbursed after producing bills countersigned by the head of the institute. 4. Unfortunately because of the advance stage of the ailment, petitioners husband could not survive the treatment and before transplanation he died. Now the question which is required to be considered is as to whether if the transplanation could not be done, the amount spent on his treatment were required to be reimbursed or not? Whether the State can distinguish the case of the petitioner with another similarly situated person only on the ground that the said person got a transplanation done whereas the petitioners husband died before transplanation could be done. As would be clear from the counter affidavit this is the only ground for denial of the expenditure incurred on the treatment of the petitioners husband. The petitioners husband not on his own reckoning did not get his kidney transplanted. He had no desire to die and desired to get the amount reimbursed by the State. This peculiar stand of the Health Department cannot be appreciated. If that be the only difference in the case of the petitioner and the case of Dr. Vinay Kumar, total expenses of the petitioners husband are to be reimbursed. The Health Departmenl was required to go into this aspect of the matter as to whether there has been actual expenditure of the treatment of the petitioners husband or not. Petitioners husband was an employee of the State is an accepted fact. His treatment could not be made in the State of Bihar and had been recommended for treatment outside the State which was sanctioned and approved is an accepted fact. He was undergoing treatment that is not denied. Only he was referred to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow. Then also Additional Secretary granted approval. His treatment could not be made in the State of Bihar and had been recommended for treatment outside the State which was sanctioned and approved is an accepted fact. He was undergoing treatment that is not denied. Only he was referred to S.G.P.G.I., Lucknow. Then also Additional Secretary granted approval. Treatment had been made but unfortunately the disease had spread to the extent that was required to be treated before actual transplanation could be done. Petitioners husband could not survive the same that is unfortunate for the family of the deceased Government servant. State has to act as per its rules regarding reimbursement and if one man has been reimbursed the other man has also required to be reimbursed the actual expenditure. It is accordingly ordered. 5. In the facts of the case, Annexure-16 is quashed to the extent regarding any recovery from the petitioners husband in regard to the advance made to him rather the same should be adjusted towards the entire expenditure made by him in Delhi and Lucknow. It is further made clear that after re-calculation of the biils already submitted by the petitioner if they are duly endorsed by the authorities of the institute after adjusting the advance which has been made to the petitioner the remaining amount should be paid to the widow of the deceased employee within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Order. 6. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.