Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 107 (TRI)

Pradip Datta v. State of Tripura

2021-07-26

ARINDAM LODH

body2021
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K.Deb, learned panel counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. This is a case filed by the petitioner being his application for medical reimbursement was rejected by the State-respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that his daughter was suffering from illness and she was under treatment of Dr. J. L. Roy, Agartala, Tripura. The petitioner had paid visit to Hyderabad for better treatment of his daughter. For two occasions, the petitioner went to Hyderabad for the treatment of his daughter. During those two occasions, the said daughter was escorted by the petitioner as well as his wife. During second visit, the wife of the petitioner fell ill and on being examined by the Doctors of Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology (for short, AINU), in her kidney stone was detected. The wife of the petitioner, Smt. Lipika Das Datta, underwent surgery there and removed the stone. After returning from Hyderabad, the petitioner submitted bills for medical reimbursement as he was eligible for such reimbursement of medical bills for the treatment of his wife. The said bills were rejected by the State-respondents on the ground that the petitioner went to Hyderabad and treated his wife at AINU without any referral certificate from the recognized standing Medical Board constituted by the Govt. of Tripura. 3. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in an emergent situation, the wife of the petitioner was operated by AINU doctors and for such emergent situation, the petitioner could not obtain referral certificate from the Medical Board. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Deb, learned panel counsel of the State-respondent submits that the present case is not the case where the State-respondents had rejected the claim for medical reimbursement on any technical ground. learned counsel has emphasized that the present case is not a case where the petitioner had treated his wife in an emergent situation. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the Memo. dated 16.12.2019 sanctioning the leave of the petitioner by the competent authority wherein it transpires that the petitioner applied for leave “due to personal affairs” where I have noticed that there is specific option for applying “leave on medical ground”. I have also noticed the discharge summary of Mrs. Lipika Das Datta dated 24.12.2019 issued by AINU. dated 16.12.2019 sanctioning the leave of the petitioner by the competent authority wherein it transpires that the petitioner applied for leave “due to personal affairs” where I have noticed that there is specific option for applying “leave on medical ground”. I have also noticed the discharge summary of Mrs. Lipika Das Datta dated 24.12.2019 issued by AINU. The discharge summary reveals that the petitioner undertook so many medical tests of his wife and ultimately stone was detected at her kidney. Under the caption “COMPLAINT(s)” it is written that “right loin pain on and off since 8 years associated with occasional LUTS”. Under the head “HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS” it is written that “Mrs. Lipika Das Datta presented with Right loin pain on and off since 8 years associated with occasional LUTS. History of aggravating same symptoms since 3 months. CT abdomen plain was shown which showed right renal calculus with mild pelviectasis and mesenteric lymphadenopathy. Patient admitted for further evaluation and management.” 5. The said discharge summary further reveals that “patient was admitted and evaluated with appropriate investigations. After thorough pre-operative evaluation and pre-anaesthetic checkup, patient was taken up for surgery. Right Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Lessor Lithotripsy + DJ stenting was done under general anaesthesia on 23.12.2019.” 6. Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service as many as two judgments passed by this Court in WP(C) 1479/2017, titled as Uttam Pal v. State of Tripura and in WP(C) No.895/2018, titled as Subal Das v. State of Tripura. Having perused those judgments, according to me, those judgments do not have any relevance to consider the facts of the present case. 7. In my opinion, this is not a case where the petitioner had to treat and admit his wife Smt. Lipika Das Datta in an emergent situation. The exigency was not at that level that the petitioner could not obtain referral certificate from the standing Medical Board. According to me, since the wife of the petitioner had been suffering from this illness for about 8 years and for the last 3 months before his visiting to Hyderabad there was pain off and on at her abdomen, she could have easily contacted with the Doctors of the Government Hospitals at Agartala for her treatment. The Government instructions regarding reimbursement of petitioner as a Government employee should strictly follow the Government guidelines for medical reimbursement bills. The Government instructions regarding reimbursement of petitioner as a Government employee should strictly follow the Government guidelines for medical reimbursement bills. More so, the petitioner could have applied for leave on medical ground but he applied for granting leave on personal affairs w.e.f. 17.12.2019 to 28.12.2019. 8. Having viewed thus, I do not find any error in rejecting the application for reimbursement of medical bills of the petitioner by the respondents. 9. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.