Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 292 (MEG)

Lapynhun Kharkongor v. State of Meghalaya

2022-11-03

H.S.THANGKHIEW

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner by way of this instant writ application has prayed for reimbursement of the expenses incurred for her kidney treatment, the bills of which had been submitted by her (L) father who was an employee of PHE Department on whom she was dependent. 2. Mr. S.R. Lyngdoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is without any source of income and is financially incapable to meet the medical expenses, and even for the expenses incurred for the treatment for the period w.e.f. 18.07.2019 to 14.08.2019, no reimbursement has been forthcoming, and in fact the same has been rejected by the State respondents. 3. The State respondents have filed an affidavit wherein it has been indicated therein that the ground for non-grant of medical reimbursement, was due to the ineligibility of the writ petitioner who would not come within the definition of Rule 3 (g) (iii) of the Meghalaya Medical Attendance Rule, 1981. Mr. H. Kharmih, learned Addl. Sr. GA therefore submits that the petitioner being not entitled to the reimbursement as claimed, the same cannot be granted. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials on record. 5. It appears from the materials and the submissions that the writ petitioner is a kidney disease patient, who requires specialized treatment, and during the period when her father was still alive and in service, had received treatment at Apollo Hospital Guwahati. Though the bills are said to have been submitted, the same has not been annexed in the writ petition, however the affidavit of the State respondents, reveals that such bills claiming for reimbursement were received on 27.01.2022 for the period w.e.f. 18.07.2019 to 26.07.2019 and 28.07.2019 to 14.08.2019. 6. It is also noted that in such cases which requires specialized treatment, a referral certificate is necessary to seek reimbursement as the same is needed for Government approval. The stand of the State respondents is that the referral certificate issued by the Health & Medical Officer, Umsning CHC and countersigned by the District Medical & Health Officer, Ri-Bhoi, was never forwarded to the respondent No. 3, while the said bills were under consideration. It is further noted that Meghalaya Medical Attendance Rule, 1981 at Rule 3(g) has defined who shall constitute 'Family' of a Government servant. It is further noted that Meghalaya Medical Attendance Rule, 1981 at Rule 3(g) has defined who shall constitute 'Family' of a Government servant. The said Rule came to be amended by an amendment in 27.08.2013 and in the case of daughter, the amendment at Rule 3(g)(iii) has provided as follows:- 'Unmarried daughters' not exceeding 25 years in age to be modified as: 'Till she starts earning or get married, whichever is earlier, irrespective of age-limit. Also to include widowed daughters and dependent divorced/separated daughters irrespective of age-limit.' A perusal of the amendment of Rule 3(g)(iii) clearly indicates that family will include unmarried daughter not exceeding 25 years in age with the sub-clause as to the eligibility of dependent whether she is earning or married. 7. In the instant case, the writ petitioner by application of the said Rule is clearly ineligible as she has exceeded 25 years of age and stated to be a housewife. However, it is also been stated that she is financially incapable and totally dependent on her deceased father for the sustenance. 8. In this view of the matter, though the petitioner may not come within the strict eligibility, the fact that in 2019 the referral certificate had been issued for her treatment by the concerned authorities and the fact that the reimbursement as claimed had been submitted by her (L) father, while in service and further considering the condition of the writ petitioner, are factors that cannot be ignored. 9. It has been brought to the notice of this Court at this stage that the Meghalaya Medical Attendance Rules, 1981 has since been superseded by new Rules in 2021, wherein the definition of family at Rule 3 (7) (e) also includes sole dependent daughter suffering from diseases specified in Annexure-1, with no age limit. By virtue of the Meghalaya Medical Attendance Rule, 1981 as observed above the writ petitioner was not eligible for any medical reimbursement but had the treatment been undertaken subsequent to the implementation of the Rules of 2021, perhaps some consideration may have been given by the respondents. 10. The case of the petitioner in this backdrop perhaps merits some consideration by the respondents, at least with regard to the treatment received at Apollo Hospital Guwahati in the year 2019. 10. The case of the petitioner in this backdrop perhaps merits some consideration by the respondents, at least with regard to the treatment received at Apollo Hospital Guwahati in the year 2019. In the circumstances, therefore, the respondent may perhaps consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the new Rules by resorting to Rule 16 of the Meghalaya Medical Attendance Rules, 2021, which provides for relaxation in the operation of the rules to such extent, subject to such conditions that may be considered necessary in a just and equitable manner. It is made clear that any consideration for reimbursement, will be strictly confined to the bills which has been submitted by her (L) father while he was in service, by taking into account her current financial position which firstly has to be ascertained and the extent to which relief can be afforded, if any. 11. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of. 12. It is made clear that this judgment will not serve as a precedent but has been passed based solely on the peculiar circumstances of the case.