Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 281 (TRI)

Asit Kumar Das v. State of Tripura

2022-07-04

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - Heard learned counsel Mr. C.S. Sinha appearing for the appellant and learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma appearing on behalf of the respondents-State. 2. Challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of WP(C) No.41 of 2015 directing the respondents to examine the medical bills furnished by the petitioner for taking treatment of his mother during the period from 14.11.2012 to 24.11.2012 in ILS Hospital, Agartala and after due verification of the medical bills the same shall be reimbursed to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% until the actual payment. 3. At the outset, learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Mangal Debbarma appearing for the State, submits that bills raised by the appellant-petitioner have been paid both prior to the judgment of this Court as well as in due compliance of this Court's directions. It appears from the record produced by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that the State has complied with the directions issued by this Court as noted hereinabove and a total of Rs.6,41,189 has been released in favour of the petitioner for treatment of his mother in ILS Hospital, Agartala. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. C.S. Sinha contended that certain expenditure incurred by the appellant for the treatment of his mother at Kolkata had not been paid. In this respect, learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to point out from the documents on record which was the bill that he claims to remain unpaid. Unfortunately, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any such bill and instead referred to the prayer made in the writ petition, in particular a sum of Rs.1,36,274. On going through the order of the learned Single Judge as noted hereinabove, the issue before the learned Single Judge has been dealt with by His Lordship in paragraph-8 of the impugned order, which has been reproduced hereinbelow: '8. This court can take a judicial notice that in the Govt. On going through the order of the learned Single Judge as noted hereinabove, the issue before the learned Single Judge has been dealt with by His Lordship in paragraph-8 of the impugned order, which has been reproduced hereinbelow: '8. This court can take a judicial notice that in the Govt. hospital there was no basic medical facilities available for the treatment as it was required for the patient and the only private hospital available is ILS Hospital, Agartala in the State of Tripura and the Government also realized that the ILS Hospital, Agartala has to be made a referral hospital in meeting out the emergent situation if arises in extending medical facilities to the dependant govt. employee which was later on approved as a referral hospital on 9th September, 2013 and at the same time list of private hospitals were approved as a referral hospitals of Kolkata and the patient was taken to Kolkata on the recommendations made by the Standing Medical Board referred to Seth Sukhlal Karmani Memorial(SSKM)/Rabindra Nath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences(RTIICS) Hospital, Kolkata where also the patient took treatment and all the medical bills as admissible under the medical rules have been reimbursed to the petitioner.' 5. From the aforesaid facts, it clearly emerges that the State had refused to reimburse the appellant-petitioner for expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his deceased mother during her treatment at ILS Hospital, Agartala purportedly on account of the fact that at the time of the alleged incident and her treatment on 14.11.2012, the said hospital had not been declared as a referral hospital by the State of Tripura, but this Court found that the said hospital had been approved as a referral hospital on 09.09.2013 and taking the subsequent approval of the State Government into consideration, this Court had directed the State to also reimburse the expenses incurred by the appellant-petitioner at ILS Hospital, Agartala. This direction of this Court has been complied with. Further, the claim of the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner had not been reimbursed for the expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his mother at Kolkata is no longer res integra in view of the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-8 of the impugned order as noted hereinabove. Further, the claim of the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner had not been reimbursed for the expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his mother at Kolkata is no longer res integra in view of the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-8 of the impugned order as noted hereinabove. It is clear therefrom that all the medical bills as admissible under the medical rules for the treatment of the appellant's mother at Seth Sukhlal Karmani Memorial(SSKM)/Rabindra Nath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences(RTIICS) Hospital, Kolkata where the patient had undergone treatment have been reimbursed to the petitioner. Therefore, the issue raised on behalf of the appellant has been set at rest and was not subject matter of the original writ petition itself. It appears, therefore, that the only issue that arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was the expenses that the appellant-petitioner had borne for his mother's treatment at ILS Hospital, Agartala and since subsequent to the decision of the learned Single Judge, the State have also released all permissible dues of the appellant, nothing further remains for consideration in the present appeal and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further claims in the present appeal for grant of compensation. In this regard, this Court expresses no opinion in the matter, however, leaves it open for the appellant to seek appropriate civil remedy, if he is so advised. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.