M.L. KAMRA Vs. LT. GOVERNOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to reimburse the medical claim of Rs.1,30,238.90 of the petitioner incurred on his treatment and coronary bypass surgery in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi with interest @ 24% per annum and issue of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the respondent bearing no.705 dated 9.8.1998 by which reimbursement claim was declined.

(2.) MATERIAL facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is working as a Trained Graduate Teacher in Dau Dayal Arya Vedic Senior Secondary School, Naya Bans, Delhi which is a Government aided school, and is governed by the Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules in the matter of medical attendance and reimbursement of claim for treatment. The petitioner was suffering from (CAD) triple vessel coronary artery disease. On 17.9.1996 angiography was done on him in G.B. Pant Hospital (a Delhi Government Hospital). His condition was found stable and he was discharged with instructions "to attend cardiology clinic room No.7 on Monday/Friday and to collect final CAG Report from Ex. II Lab and report after three days." The claim for expenses incurred on medicine and angiography done in the said hospital was later on reimbursed to the petitioner. It is alleged in the petition that after a fortnight the condition of the petitioner started deteriorating and he had to undergo elaborate medical check up. He consulted Dr. M.P. Gupta on 5.10.1996 and 9.10.1996. He also consulted Dr. R.C. Bhatia of Swamy Dayanand Hospital, who is a cardiologist and who advised him to have immediate coronary bypass surgery as he was complaining of re -current chest pain and dysponea. The petitioner tried to take an early date for his surgery in AIIMS but could not succeed. His family then rushed him to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital on 14.10.1996 where he was put under observation for surgery on account of his critical condition. A coronary by -pass surgery was then performed on him on 17.10.1996 since his case required an emergency treatment. He was discharged from the said hospital on 25.10.1996. On 11.1.1997 the petitioner submitted medical bills to the Department of Education of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for reimbursement of the medical expenses totalling Rs.1,30,238.90 incurred by him on the surgery and treatment at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. Out if it Rs.1,28,020/ - was for treatment and operation in the hospital and the balance of Rs.2,218.90 was the expenditure incurred on medicine. Despite repeated reminders and legal notice dated 21.9.1999 the respondents have failed to reimburse the claim. Contrarily the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on 9.8.1998 vide letter No.704 addressed to the Principal of the School, where the petitioner was working, without assigning any reason. Hence the petition.

(3.) IN the rejoinder the petitioner controverter the case pleaded in the counter affidavit. It was submitted that according to the Circular No.F.27/9/97 -H&FW dated 26.9.1997 Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules were applicable to the employees of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi till new rules were framed. The respondents have concealed circular no.G.I.,M.H.&F.W.,O.M.No.S.14024/13/96M.S. dated 1st July 1997 of CS (MA) Rules according to which Circular No. G.I.M.H. & F.W., O.M.No.110011/16/ 94 -GHS/ Desk II/CMO(D)/CGHS(P) dated 18th September 1996 of CGHS as it is was adopted in the Central Services(Medical Attendance) Rules and that CGHS circular declared Indraprastha Apollo Hospital as a recognised hospital. He also alleged that G.B. Pant Hospital did not enjoy good reputation on account of a number of death in coronary by pass surgery cases and he could not get early date of operation in AIIMS. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court has laid down that right to health is an integral part of right to life and respondents have deprived the petitioner of his right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution by rejecting the medical reimbursement claim and the respondents have further violated Article 14 of the Constitution as in a number of other cases similar reimbursement claim has been allowed.