JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to provide the medical claim by way of medical reimbursement a sum of Rs.2,01,436/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to provide the medical reimbursement a sum of Rs.2,01,436/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had worked as Inspector of Police in Theppakulam Police Station in Madurai city. The petitioner was placed under suspension in connection with a case in Crime No.9/2007 on 06.09.2007. The petitioner attained superannuation on 31.07.2008 and he was not allowed to retire due to the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case till now. The petitioner is under suspension and salary is paid without exceeding the provisional pension. The petitioner comes under the New Health Insurance Schemes for retired employees, since 2014. The petitioner suffered health disorder during September, 2014 and was admitted as inpatient at Vadamalayan Hospital Private Limited in Madurai. The petitioner has undergone by-pass grafting in the "Off Pump Coronary Artery". In pursuance of the surgery, the petitioner was under medical care. The said ailment is included in the list of ailments. The petitioner applied for reimbursement for the said medical expenses. Since the same was not considered, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P. (MD)No.10193 of 2015 for the reimbursement of my medical expenses. This Court, vide order, dated 15.07.2015, has as follows: "When the matter is taken up for hearing it is represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader that the Government has now recovered the contribution for availing the medical benefit/medical claim under the new health insurance scheme from the petitioner. The submission made by the learned Additional Government Pleader is recorded. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to extend the medical benefits to the petitioner immediately. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.” 3. Since the petitioner was under suspension, the contribution was not taken from the petitioner salary. Subsequently, the contribution was taken and the same was recorded. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to extend the medical benefits to the petitioner immediately. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.” 3. Since the petitioner was under suspension, the contribution was not taken from the petitioner salary. Subsequently, the contribution was taken and the same was recorded. In spite of the same, since the amount was not paid and the order was not complied, the petitioner preferred Cont.P.(MD)No.449/2017. Since the writ petition was heard without hearing the Insurance Company, the contempt petition was closed. 4. The contention of the petitioner is since 2014, the contribution is collected from the petitioner. The second respondent Insurance Company is liable to reimburse the said amount. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Government has granted a sum of Rs.52,545/- as part of the medical reimbursement, but the remaining amount a sum of Rs.2,01,436/- has to be paid. 5. The petitioner is 67 years old and living with a subsidence allowance alone. The 2nd respondent is liable to reimburse the entire claim. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the balance amount. 6. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the first respondent Commissioner of Police has stated that the claim in the writ petition is against the Insurance Company and the Commissioner of Police is an unnecessary part and has prayed to delete his name. The third respondent namely, the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Chennai was impleaded as third respondent, vide order, dated 24.11.2021. 7. The second respondent has denied that they are not liable to pay the amount even though the contribution is collected from the petitioner for medical insurance because, any subsequent collection is not binding the insurance company. The insurance company is liable from the date of payment of premium and the medical claim ought to be after premium. If any medical claim is claimed prior to the premium, the insurance company is not liable to pay. 8. The contention of the second respondent is that the pre-authorized approval based on G.O.No.171 Finance, dated 26.06.2014, is necessary. In this case, the second respondent has not received any request from the hospital during the treatment or before the discharge on any deviation from the procedure for reimbursement is liable to be rejected. 8. The contention of the second respondent is that the pre-authorized approval based on G.O.No.171 Finance, dated 26.06.2014, is necessary. In this case, the second respondent has not received any request from the hospital during the treatment or before the discharge on any deviation from the procedure for reimbursement is liable to be rejected. The petitioner has stated in his own statement that he was admitted on 14.09.2014 and discharged on 23.09.2014 incurring medical expense of Rs.71,580/-. Thereafter, for open heart surgery again the petitioner was admitted for second time on 23.09.2014 for which he has claimed insurance expense of Rs.1,69,348/-. For both the treatment, the petitioner has not given any prior information. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to. The insurance company has paid more than Rs.120 crores towards settlement of medical claims under the New Health Insurance claim for the pensioners. In fact, the amount is prescribed by the pensioners is only Rs.100 crores. Thus, the respondent insurance company has spent Rs.20 crores more than the prescribed amount and has reimbursed various claims. The second respondent has incurred a loss, by entertaining such claims. If this claim is entertained then, the second respondent would be incurring further loss and the second respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the claim of the petitioner could not be considered under the insurance scheme. Therefore, alternative claim was entertained under Medical Attendance Rules and the petitioner was paid Rs.52,543/-. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim beyond the limit prescribed / applicable under the Medical Attendance Rules. In the Medical Attendance Rules, the rates are obtained from the hospital and thereafter, the amount is being paid. Therefore, the third respondent submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to beyond the payment payable under Medical Attendance Rules. 10. Heard Mr.C.M.Arumugam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.P.Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate appearing for first and third respondents and Mr.A.Shajahan, learned Counsel appearing for second respondent. 11. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was placed under suspension and therefore, the respondents have not collected any premium from the petitioner. Thereafter, based on the order of the Court, premium was collected from the petitioner. 11. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was placed under suspension and therefore, the respondents have not collected any premium from the petitioner. Thereafter, based on the order of the Court, premium was collected from the petitioner. This premium was collected after the medical expenses were incurred for the ailment and therefore the contention of the insurance company is that the company is liable from the date of receiving the premium and not prior to the receiving of the premium. 12. There is a huge gap between the rates prescribed in private hospitals and the rates prescribed in Medical Attendance Rules. The Government states that the rates are prescribed taking into account the expenses incurred in the government hospitals for the said treatment. The Treasury Department has already disbursed the amount as applicable under the Medical Attendance Rules. But the claim of the petitioner is that the official respondents ought to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by applying the rates applicable in the private hospitals and not Medical Attendance Rules. Now the question is whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount beyond the rates prescribed under the Medical Attendance Rules. Admittedly, the expenses incurred in the private hospital is more than the rates prescribed under the Medical Attendance Rules. 13. In this present case, since the petitioner is more than 65 years and has incurred more than Rs.2 lakhs and has received Rs.52,543/- in order to meet the ends of justice, the third respondent is directed to pay further amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to accept the amount as full and final settlement. The third respondent is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.