P R KANWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. This writ petition was filed initially by one P.R. Kanwar, retired IRS. During the pendency of the writ petition P.R. Kanwar died. His wife was impleaded as petitioner. She is also now 85 years of age staying in Old Age Home at Kapashera. The case of the petitioner is that late husband of the petitioner was a patient of chronic bronchities and asthama. In the year 1993 he was undergoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi which is a Government Hospital and was attended by Dr. J.C. Suri, M.D., OPCD, Dsc B. Head of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine. The said Doctor diagnosed that the late husband of the petitioner was suffering from COPD with Chronic Respiratory failure and heart rate irregularities(ventricular estopics) due to significant nocturnal oxygen desaturation. The said Doctor recommended husband of the petitioner to take long term domicillary oxygen treatment for the proper control of his illness. The said certificate of recommendation is dated 24.4.93. As the husband of the petitioner was directed to life long oxygen treatment at home as he was under serious risk of life he procured oxygen concentrator with transformer. It is the case of the petitioner that oxygen concentrator was not available in India at that time especially but was imported and the said oxygen concentrator was purchased by the husband of the petitioner by mobilising all possible resources by spending Rs.56,100.00 The said oxygen concentrator was purchased on 17.5.1993 at the lowest price along with transformer on 8.6.1993. A letter was sent to the respondent to reimburse the said amount incurred on the said oxygen concentrator. The said letter was not accepted by the Central Government Health Scheme(CGHS) officials as it was not in the prescribed form. Thereafter, appropriate form was filled when the respondent directed the late husband of the petitioner that a separate certificate from the specialist was to be furnished same was also furnished. On 31.8.1993 the respondent rejected the request for reimbursement. The respondent rejected the request of the husband of the petitioner on the ground that said oxygen concentrator was a hospital equipment. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner fell seriously ill in the year 1998. He was admitted in Geetanjali Hospital Nursing Home for one month. He paid Rs.10,000.00 and addition to that he also paid Rs.9300.00 and Rs.8700.00 for maintenance of said oxygen concentrator on 12.7.98 and 24.5.99. The husband of the petitioner also spent Rs.4685.00 in another hospital on 25.1.99 for various medical treatment. The total expenditure incurred on treatment was Rs.34,685.00 and the same has not been reimbursed by the respondent. I need not go into these amounts as counsel for the respondent says that these amounts will be reimbursed to the petitioner if already not reimbursed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent is responsible to look into the health care facilities for Central Government Employees as per Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rule (2) (e) (ii) and (iii). The same is as under:

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid rules it was argued by counsel for the petitioner that right to health is enshrined in right to life. When the rules of the respondent do not exclude oxygen concentrator, action of respondent by not reimbursing the amount which was spent by husband of petitioner is illegal. In support of her contention counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1388, State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh Chawla etc. JT 1997 (1) SC 416, Kuldip Singh Vs. Union of India 2002 (64) DRJ 620, and judgment of this Court in B.R. Mehta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 79(1999) DLT 388 Narendra Pal Singh Vs. Union of India 79(1999) DLT 358, T.S.Oberoi Vs. Union of India CW. 475/96 decided on 3.5.2002.