Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2452 (JHR)

Sitaram Mehta v. State of Jharkhand

2018-11-02

S.N.PATHAK, S.N.PATHAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to pay and release the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the treatment of the petitioner with interest @ 12 per annum. 2. The fact of the case in brief is that in the year, 2000, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police in Doranda Police Station and on 28.12.2000, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia was killed. In order to control communal problem, the petitioner was deputed at Rajendra Chowk within Doranda Police Station. In course of saving the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, the petitioner also sustained injuries on different parts of his body. Thereafter, he was admitted in AIIMS, New Delhi for his treatment. Even after remaining for long time in AIIMS, the petitioner could not recover fully. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the month of February, 2013 the petitioner fell seriously ill and accordingly, he was admitted in RIMS, Ranchi and in course of treatment as on 20.05.2013, the Doctor detected that the petitioner was suffering from Cancer. Accordingly, he was referred to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. Thereafter on 30.05.2013, the petitioner went to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and treatment of Cancer commenced. In course of treatment, the Doctor detected that the petitioner was suffering from Plasma Cell Leukemia, a type of Cancer and the only recourse of treatment is Blood Cell Transplantation cost of which was assessed to be not less than Rs. 10-12 lakh. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner on 21.09.2013, requested the respondent No.4 for release of Rs. 10 lakh for the purpose of his treatment as advised by the Doctor. Subsequently, the petitioner was provided with a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- through Bank Draft vide letter No. 881 dated 17.12.2013 which he deposited in Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai on 19.12.2013. He was discharged from the said hospital on 30.12.2013. In the meantime, the Chairman, State Level Medical Board, Jharkhand, Ranchi also recommended the case of the petitioner for treatment at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide letter unde Memo No. 4007 dated 17.08.2013, the respondent No. 5 issued superannuation notice showing 31.01.2014 as the date of superannuation of the petitioner and accordingly, he was superannuated on 31.01.2014 during the course of his treatment. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that vide letter unde Memo No. 4007 dated 17.08.2013, the respondent No. 5 issued superannuation notice showing 31.01.2014 as the date of superannuation of the petitioner and accordingly, he was superannuated on 31.01.2014 during the course of his treatment. Meanwhile, on 12.11.2013, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No.4 for medical reimbursement of Rs. 2,45,790.12 incurred by him for the treatment done during the period from 08.05.2013 to 01.11.2013. After Blood Cell Transplantation, the petitioner was released on 11.12.2014. He is still under treatment. Again on 20.01.2015, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No.4 for reimbursement of Rs.3,31,653 as against the total expenditure of Rs. 11,31,653 by adjusting the advance payment of Rs. 8 lacs. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents for reimbursement of Rs.3,31,653/- despite several representations, the petitioner has been constrained to move before this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement of aforesaid due amount which has been incurred on medical expenses. Learned counsel further argues that a sum of Rs. 8 lacs was given to the petitioner prior to the retirement and was for the purpose of treatment in Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. Learned counsel further argues that may be the petitioner retired during the course of treatment that does not seized the right of petitioner for getting treatment in the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for which an advance was duly sanctioned on the recommendation of the Medical Board for treatment of the same. The recovery of the amount on the pretext of retirement during the treatment is in-human, unpractical and not tenable in the eyes of law. Thus, a direction be given upon the respondents for reimbursement of the amount incurred, by way of treatment at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai. In support of his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva kant Jha Vs. Union of India, reported in JT 2018 (4) SC 269. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that earlier an amount of Rs. In support of his contention, learned counsel places heavy reliance on a reported judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva kant Jha Vs. Union of India, reported in JT 2018 (4) SC 269. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that earlier an amount of Rs. 8 lacs has been paid to the petitioner vide Memo No. 728 dated 28.11.2013 as an advance in pursuant to the estimated amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- given by the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for the treatment of the petitioner, who was suffering from Cancer. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner superannuated from services w.e.f. 31.01.2014 and as such, matter was referred to the Department of Health, Govt. of Jharkhand and as per the direction of the Health Department, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 3,05,745/- and accordingly, it has been recommended to adjust the amount from the advance taken by the petitioner, which is evident from letter No. 645 dated 04.08.2016. Learned counsel further argues that before superannuation from the services, the petitioner had submitted medical bills of Rs.1,28,783/- and 3,52,903/- and accordingly he spent a total of Rs.4,81,686/- on his treatment prior to his superannuation. The petitioner had submitted the medical bill of Tata Memorial Hospital of Rs. 7,05,205/- for the period from 19.02.2014 to 15.02.2014 i.e. after his retirement from the services on 30.01.2014 and accordingly, the total expenditure on his treatment prior to his superannuation and after superannuation comes to Rs. 11,86,890.56/-. Learned counsel further argues that as per the opinion given by the Health Department, the petitioner is only entitled for a total amount of Rs.3,05,745/-, the amount incurred prior to superannuation and as such, out of total amount Rs. 8 lac, Rs.3,05,745/- was adjusted and Rs.4,94,256/- was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner, which has been paid in excess. Justifying the order of recovery, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as the petitioner has already retired from services on 31.01.2014 and a letter has been issued by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Budget to the Superintendent of Police, Special Branch, Ranchi dated 27.04.2016 for recovery of the rest amount of Rs.4,94,256/- for which the petitioner is not entitled. 6. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The petitioner was sanctioned the amount of Rs. 8 lac prior to his superannuation for his treatment at the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. The said advance amount was granted on the recommendation of State Level Medical Board, Jharkhand Ranchi and in the midst of treatment, the petitioner superannuated from his services. During service period, the petitioner sustained a bullet injury, while he was on duty and later on the said injury turned into cancer for which he was recommended for treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, therefore, an advance amount was sanctioned and granted to the petitioner for treatment. The recovery order merely on technical ground of superannuation of the petitioner appears to be inhuman and unpractical. To get medical facilities during the course of employment as well as after the superannuation is a legal right of the employees and no fetters can be placed on his/their rights. 7. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva Kant Jha Vs. Union of India, Reported in JT 2018 (4) SC 269 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- 13……..“ Before any medical claim is honoured, the authorities are bound to ensure as to whether the claimant had actually taken treatment and the factum of treatment is supported by records duly certified by Doctors/Hospitals concerned. Once, it is established, the claim cannot be denied on technical grounds”…... 14….. The relevant authorities are required to be more responsive and cannot in a mechanical manner deprive an employee of his legitimate reimbursement. The Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) was propounded with a purpose of providing health facility scheme to the Central Government employees so that they are not left without medical care after retirement. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force……... 8. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital and he was treated and in midst of the treatment, he superannuated. It was in furtherance of the object of a welfare State, which must provide for such medical care that the scheme was brought in force……... 8. In the present case, it cannot be denied that the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital and he was treated and in midst of the treatment, he superannuated. Since the petitioner has not challenged the order of recovery, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as it relates to medical reimbursement, which has been rejected on technical grounds, I hereby direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation, annexing all the documents on which he is relying, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the same taking into account that the advance amount was sanctioned prior to retirement and it was only in the midst of treatment, the petitioner superannuated and as such technicalities cannot come in the way of medical reimbursement in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiva Kant Jha (supra), in accordance with law, within a further period of six weeks. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, directions, legal proposition and judicial pronouncement, this case stands disposed of.