M G MAHINDRU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner retired as a Central Government officer and under the policy of the Government was entitled to reimbursement by the Government regarding his illness. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1996, the petitioner was referred by consultant in RML Hospital to the Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre for coronary ; angiography. "On 1.10.1996 the petitioner was accorded permission for heart surgery vide letter dated 1.10.1996. The total cost of surgery incurred 'by the petitioner was Rs.2,08,270.00. The respondents have reimbursed only Rs.1,27,650.00. The balance of the amount of Rs.80,620.00 has not been paid to the petitioner.

(2.) Aggrieved by non-reimbursement of the expenses CM 5317/99 incurred by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has raised all the amounts through loans from friends and relatives for his operation. At page 10 of the paper-book is the letter from Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital with the recommendation that the petitioner was suffering from CAD with MI. He requires urgent Angiography CART/CABG. It was further recommended in the letter that necessary sanction be accorded by the CGHS and he. should be referred to Escort Heart Institute & Research Centre which was approved by the CGHS for the said purpose. On 1.10.1996 the office of the Additional Director, CGHS granted permission for taking treatment to the Escort Heart Institute with the direction that all | the bills will be paid directly to the Hospital by the department amounting to Rs.13,800.00 and Rs.1,13,850.00, i.e. Rs.1,27,650.00.

(3.) It was contended by Ms.Janani, learned counsel I for the petitioner that when the actual expenditure was to the extent of Rs.2,08,270.00, the petitioner was entitled for the deficit amount of Rs.80,620.00. In support of her contention, she has cited Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. 79(1999) DLT 358 as well as State of Pun jab & Ors ..Vs Mohinder Singh Chawla etc. JT 1997 (1) SC 416. It was observed by Supreme Court in State of Punjab's case (supra) as under :-