Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 810 (GAU)

Sipra Bhowmik v. State of Tripura

2008-11-21

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Govt. Advocate who represented the respondents. Despite several opportunities granted by this Court, the counter affidavit on behalf of the State has not been filed and as it was already ordered that the case is to be taken up for final disposal, this Court does not consider it necessary to give further time for filing of such affidavit. This case relates to a claim for medical reimbursement of the cost incurred for the treatment of the petitioner's husband who was a Group V employee, being a Moharar with the Registration Department, Govt. of Tripura. The petitioner's husband was detected with cancer of the urinary bladder and as per the norms applicable in the State of Tripura, he was referred by the standing Medical Board on 15.3.2005 for treatment to the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS), New Delhi. But as immediate treatment could not be available at AIIMS, considering the condition of the patient, he was taken for treatment to the Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai on 20.3.2005, where he was admitted on 23.3.2005. Despite the treatment received, the condition of the patient deteriorated and eventually the petitioner's husband succumbed to the disease on 1.12.2005. As per the existing policy of the Government of Tripura, notified through memorandum dated 9.8.2005, claim for reimbursement of the medical and travel expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner's husband was sought. The extent of reimbursement sought was Rs. 3,12,262 for medical cost and Rs. 15,183 for traveling expenses as permissible under the aforesaid Annexure-9 memorandum dated 9.8.2005. The claim however was rejected by the Government by its communication dated 31.3.2008 (Annexure 6) leading to filing of the instant writ petition. Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of the court to the subsequent memorandum dated 1.8.2007 of the Government of Tripura, whereby it is provided that whenever a Government employee receives medical treatment in an institution other than the referred institution on his own volition, the extent of medical and journey expenses reimbursement would be limited at the rates of treatment in the referred institute/hospital and the journey expenses thereto. The said memorandum dated 1.8.2007 also indicates that such cases falling within the purview of the said memorandum need not to be sent for approval to the Finance Department and such claims should be settled by the concerned Administrative Department itself. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Govt. advocate submits that the petitioner's husband received treatment in the instant case in the year 2005 and since the memorandum dated 1.8.2007 is not to operate retrospectively, the claim for medical reimbursement made by the petitioner for treatment by her husband at Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai instead of the referred hospital (AIIMS, New Delhi) cannot be permitted. Responding to the stand taken by the Government, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Supreme Court decision in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 336 where the Supreme Court has dealt with a similar case like the present one. The Supreme Court in this case has held that the patient referred for treatment in a particular hospital like AIIMS in order to take steps for his self reservation may go to a alternate hospital and in such event the reimbursement of the cost incurred at the rate applicable at the referred hospital would be payable to the patient. Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Surjit Singh (supra), 1 am of the opinion that the stand of the respondent that the memorandum dated 1.8.2007 would only apply prospectively and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to reimbursement of medical treatment on the basis of the aforesaid memorandum dated 1.8.2007 is not acceptable. Such stand is not only unfair and arbitrary and cannot be in my view permitted to be taken, in the context of the benefit sought to be conferred by the Government memorandum dated 1.8.2007. There is no distinction between the class of claimants who received treatment before 1.8.2007 and those who received treatment thereafter. Therefore, the reimbursement benefits under the memorandum in my opinion should be available even for those claimants where the patient was treated prior to 1.8.2007. Only then the beneficial, memorandum would be consistent with law laid down by the Supreme Court on 31.1.1996 in the Surjit Singh (supra). Therefore, the reimbursement benefits under the memorandum in my opinion should be available even for those claimants where the patient was treated prior to 1.8.2007. Only then the beneficial, memorandum would be consistent with law laid down by the Supreme Court on 31.1.1996 in the Surjit Singh (supra). Accordingly, I hold that the rejection of the claim made for medical reimbursement is arbitrary and unfair and the petitioner is entitled to be considered for reimbursement at the rate applicable at the referred medical hospital and also the journey expenses to the said hospital. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to calculate the entitlement of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical and travel expenses in terms of the memorandum dated 1.8.2007, by taking note of the rates for the referred hospital (AIIMS, New Delhi) instead of the Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai where the patient actually received treatment. This exercise should expeditiously be carried out and reimbursement of the cost at the appropriate rate be made to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. This writ petition is allowed accordingly. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Mr. S Chakraborty and Mr. B. Benarjee, the learned Counsels, for necessary communication to all concerned. Petition allowed.