Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1518 (PAT)

Subash Chandra Mishra v. Union Of India

2009-12-03

SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the instant case the petitioner prays for commanding the respondents to pay the sanctioned fund w.e.f. November, 1986 under the National illness Assistance Fund (hereinafter to be referred to as "NAIF and further commanding the respondents to pay Rs. 200/- per month for his further treatment. 3. According to the petitioner he suffered from mental problem at the age of 30 to 32 years and was admitted in the Central Institute of Phychistry, Kanke, Ranchi, (hereinafter to be referred to as the C.I.P., Kanke) on 16th November, 1986. He was time to time treated by the doctors as copies of the prescription and other documents which have been annexed as Annexure-1 series. 4. The petitioner submits that as he did not get treatment in the C.I.P., Kanke, Ranchi he also got treatment by other doctors at Ranchi and he had to incur good expenses on his treatment. The petitioner being a poor man having no other source of income to purchase the medicine and bear the cost of treatment applied for financial assistance on 20.6.2001 under NAIF, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. It is submitted that respondents no. 4 and 5, namely, the Chief Medical Officer, C.I.P., Kanke and the Administrative Officer, C.I.P., Kanke, forwarded the application of the petitioner for grant of Rs. 1000/- per month. It is further submitted that vide letter no. 295 dated 9.12.2002 respondent no. 5 intimated the petitioner that his application had been allowed and fund was sanctioned for financial assistance. The petitioner was directed to submit his some documents alongwith the original application form. Thereafter the petitioner served an application dated 30.12.2002 appending the available documents through the registered post but no payment could be made to him. After finding no way out, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Honble President of India he was intimated vide letter dated 6.4.2004 that his application had been forwarded to the respondents for appropriate action but the same yielded no fruit. He has annexed photo copies of the cash memo of medicines available with him. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that his application is pre-matured and the petitioner did not annex all the documents as required in Annexure-4. 6. He has annexed photo copies of the cash memo of medicines available with him. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that his application is pre-matured and the petitioner did not annex all the documents as required in Annexure-4. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that the approval of the fund has already been received by the Director for disbursement of the fund under NAIF. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I direct respondent no. 4 to dispose of the application contained in Annexure-5 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The office of respondent no. 5 will also send necessary communication to the petitioner by registered post also. 8. With the aforesaid directions this writ application is disposed of.