Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 353 (TRI)

Sachi Rani Pal v. State of Tripura

2016-11-08

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 to 4. Notice on the respondents No. 5 and 6 was issued on 09.02.2016 by registered post with AD under No. 1425 and 1424, as recorded in the Registry’s note dated 08.02.2016. As such, the service can be deemed on the respondent No. 5 and 6 as the registered letter or the AD card did not reach to this Court. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner being the widow of freedom fighter, Phani Bhusan Pal who died on 28.07.2014 has challenged the action of the respondent refusing to reimburse the medical expenses amounting to Rs.1,49,669/- which was incurred for treatment of said Phani Bhusan Pal. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to the reimbursement of the medical expenses, as stated, as in the various communications it would be evident that even the authorities in the government made enquiry whether the amount as claimed had really been expended for the treatment of the said freedom fighter but by the letter dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Tripura, GA (Political) Department has communicated to the petitioner that her claim for reimbursement for the cost of the medical treatment of her husband could not be considered. The petitioner has challenged the decision contained in the said communication and urged this Court for issuing direction to make reimbursement of the said sum. 3. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has referred the communication dated 07.01.2015 (Annexure P-3 to the writ petition) by the Director of Health Service, Government of Tripura addressed to the Chief Executive Officer, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital. In this said communication, the following has been queried from the Chief Executive Officer, Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital:- “Please find enclosed herewith a medical reimbursement claim of lt. Phani Bhusan Paul, Freedom Fighter of Muhuripur, Santirbazar, South Tripura amounting to Rs.96,369/- along with 45(forty-five) nos. of Cash Memos and prescription as received from the Under Secretary to the government of Tripura, General Administration (Political) Department vide letter no. F.13(5)-GA(p)/2014, dated 22nd November, 2014. I am to inform you that lt. Phani Bhusan Paul, Freedom Fighter is allowed to reimburse the cost of medicines etc. of Cash Memos and prescription as received from the Under Secretary to the government of Tripura, General Administration (Political) Department vide letter no. F.13(5)-GA(p)/2014, dated 22nd November, 2014. I am to inform you that lt. Phani Bhusan Paul, Freedom Fighter is allowed to reimburse the cost of medicines etc. purchased by him from the local market in connection of his treatment in your hospital as per Govt. Memo No. F.1(1(261)-MS/90 dated 28th March, 2007 (copy enclosed) In this respect I am sending herewith the Original bills of Lt. Phani Bhusan Paul, Freedom Fighter to make payment and action taken in the matter may kindly be intimated to the Directorate. Enclo: As stated Yours faithfully Sd/- Director of Health Services Government of Tripura” Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has also referred subsequently, the reply of the Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital which has been extracted in a communication dated 27.03.2015 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition) addressed to the Under Secretary, G.A. (Political) Department, Government of Tripura, Agartala by the Director of the Health Services, Government of Tripura. For purpose of reference, the extracted part may be reproduced hereinbelow:- “… Lt. Phani Bhusan Paul, Freedom Fighter of Muhuripur, Santirbazar, South Tripura received treatment in Tripura Medical College, Hapania which is not a State Medical Institution and being a society run institution does not get any budgetary allocation on this account.” Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel based on the said extracted reply of the Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital has fervently submitted that nobody has denied the right of the petitioner to get the reimbursement of the medical expenses, as stated above and as such she should be provided with the reimbursement. 4. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has simply stated that the Freedom Fighter pension holder or the petitioner does not have any right to get the medical reimbursement under any circumstances. They are given the free medical aid from the Government hospital and whenever the medicine is not available in the hospital, the Head of the Institution does procure the medicine and provide them to the Freedom Fighter pension holder. For the facilitation, the budgetary allocation is made. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has referred the memorandum No. F.1(261)-MS/90 dated 25.03.2007. For the facilitation, the budgetary allocation is made. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has referred the memorandum No. F.1(261)-MS/90 dated 25.03.2007. For purpose of reference, the entire memorandum is reproduced hereunder:- “Memo Sub.: Provision of free medical aid to the Freedom Fighters and their spouses As per decision in respect of free medical aid to the Freedom Fighters as communicated vide Govt. of Tripura, Health & Family Welfare Department Memo of even No. F.1(261)-MS/90 dated 24.5.1990 and 28.9.1992 all the free fighters drawing political pension from the Central Revenue and their spouses are their spouses are entitled to get free medical aid from State Medical Institutions i.e. Hospitals, Primary Health Centers and Dispensaries of the State. The medicine required for their treatment in the hospitals, PHCs and dispensaries should be supplied by the Medical Officers free of cost and in case any item of medicine essential for their treatment are not available in stock of Health Institution, the Head of Institution concerned shall procure such item of medicine promptly from local market from the allotted budget. It is once again re-iterated to all Head of the Health Institutions to strictly follow the instruction and arrange to provide free medical aid to the Freedom Fighters and their spouses from the allotted fund”. 5. A simple reading of this memorandum dated 25.03.2007 (Annexure R-1) submitted by the respondent No. 1 to 4 would show that the Freedom Fighter drawing political pension from the Central Revenue and their spouses are entitled to get “free medical aid from State Medical Institutions i.e. Hospitals, Primary Health Centers and Dispensaries of the State. The medicine required for their treatment in the hospitals, PHCs and dispensaries should be supplied by the Medical Officers free of cost and in case any item of medicine essential for their treatment are not available in stock of the Health Institution, the Head of Institution concerned shall procure such item of medicine promptly from local market from the allocated budget. So there is no ambiguity in the memorandum dated 25.03.2007. 6. The respondent No. 1 to 4 has categorically stated that Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital is not a State medical institution. It is run by a society and the State does not infuse any grant-in-aid in management of the said hospital. So there is no ambiguity in the memorandum dated 25.03.2007. 6. The respondent No. 1 to 4 has categorically stated that Tripura Medical College and Dr. BRAM Teaching hospital is not a State medical institution. It is run by a society and the State does not infuse any grant-in-aid in management of the said hospital. Therefore, the said institution is under no obligation to provide the petitioner free medical aid to the Freedom Fighter’s pension holder. 7. Having regard to all these aspects, this Court holds that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for medical reimbursement or to demonstrate that her husband or she was/is entitled to get medical reimbursement on the strength of their such status. As such, this writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost. 8. Before parting with the records it is noted that if the petitioner may, if she is inclined, prefer any authorities, by filing a representation for giving her financial assistance in lieu of the medical reimbursement the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of such consideration.