Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 79 (PAT)

Murlidhar Ishwar v. State Of Bihar

2010-01-25

NAVIN SINHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. A Pacemaker is a life saving device. It is an implantation in the human body which may have to be carried out in emergency. The question of withdrawing a pacemaker already inserted into the human body before it loses its utility is also fraught with danger. 3. The petitioners wife was operated upon at the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the SGPGI), a Government hospital, when she was implanted with what is described as a dual chamber pacemaker costing Rs. 1,35,000.00 on 5.12.2001. From annexure-13 to I.A. No. 4867/04 filed by the petitioner on the endorsement made upon his claim it is apparent that initially the entire sum of Rs. 1,51,211.00 was sanctioned after disallowing certain medical expenses with regard to registration, E.C.G. etc. Thereafter the original sanction was struck across and the figure reduced to Rs. 41,211.00. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents on 14.8.2006. It places reliance on a Government instruction dated 27.5.1997 that Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna has estimated the minimum value of a pacemaker at Rs. 38,000.00 It is, therefore, contended by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled to anything beyond Rs. 38,000.00. notwithstanding what expenses may have actually been incurred in the purchase of pacemaker from a Government hospital. The counter affidavit is nearly 10 years after the order relied upon by the respondents. It is completely silent if the notification dated 27.5.1997 was still holding the field and had not been superseded by any other notification. 5. This Court has no hesitation in holding that inflation will naturally have its effect in the year 2001, role if it is of 1997. If the respondents have not revised the estimates, it shall be arbitrary, per se, on the face of it. Moreover, the petitioners wife has had a dual chamber pacemaker installed. The impugned annexure dated 27.5.1997 simply talks of the minimum value of a pacemaker of Rs. 38,000.00. The technical distinction of the pacemaker referred to by the petitioner finds no mention. In any event, pacemakers can be of different qualities. Moreover, the petitioners wife has had a dual chamber pacemaker installed. The impugned annexure dated 27.5.1997 simply talks of the minimum value of a pacemaker of Rs. 38,000.00. The technical distinction of the pacemaker referred to by the petitioner finds no mention. In any event, pacemakers can be of different qualities. Once the entitlement for reimbursement of a pacemaker is not in dispute, what shall happen at the time the pacemaker is to be installed, will the respondents require the patient to be left on the operation table to his or her fate over the days and hours that will be spent in the bureaucratic wrangling which quality of pacemaker shall be permitted by the respondents to be installed notwithstanding what may be available at the time of installation to save the human life. 6. The issue of the minimum cost of the pacemaker appears irrelevant. Human life is not measured in money. In any event that is the price demanded not from a private source but a Government hospital assuring quality and price of the product. 7. This Court in 2001(3) P.L.J.R. 621 (Ram Narayan Sah V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.) has held that Rule-26 of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules shall not be applicable in cases of urgency. Likewise, in (2004)13 SCC 562 (Suman Rakheja V/s. State of Haryana and Anr.) it has been held that issues of entitlement of medical reimbursement lose relevance in cases of urgency. 8. It does not appear from the counter affidavit that the respondents are disputing the fact of the particular pacemaker having been installed in a Government hospital in the physique of the wife of the petitioner. 9. The attitude of the respondents and the manner in which they have assisted the Court in the present case disappoints the Court. Instead of assisting the Court to dispense justice they appear to have turned adversial litigant not placing correct and up-to-date facts before this Court. The queries in the original pleadings referred to above remain unanswered except for what has been noticed above, which this Court does not countenance. 10. The petitioner is held entitled to full reimbursement of Rs. 1,35,000.00 on account of the implantation of a dual chamber pacemaker in the physique of the wife. 11. The queries in the original pleadings referred to above remain unanswered except for what has been noticed above, which this Court does not countenance. 10. The petitioner is held entitled to full reimbursement of Rs. 1,35,000.00 on account of the implantation of a dual chamber pacemaker in the physique of the wife. 11. Let the difference of the amount after deducting what has been made available to the petitioner, be paid positively within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. The writ application stands allowed.