VINAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Constable (GD) with Border Security Force (BSF) and was posted to 109, Bn., BSF since 11.12.2003. His father Mahender Singh s/o Sh.Suraj Singh has suffered a heart attack and he was taken to Primary Health Centre at Village Dolla, District Baghpat, U.P. on 21.05.2007. He was referred to St. Stephens Hospital on the same day and was brought to St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi where he underwent Coronary Angioplasty (Surgery) and Eluting Stent Category A was implanted. He remained under treatment in the said hospital from 21.05.2007 to 26.05.2007 as indoor patient. The petitioner on 18.08.2007 submitted the medical bills amounting to Rs.1,94,770/- for reimbursement incurred in the treatment of his father. On 25.08.2007 his claim was rejected on the ground "shifting the patient from PHC, Dolla to St. Stephens Hospital, Delhi is not justified". Thereafter according to the petitioner he had been approaching the officials of the respondents for the reimbursement which was denied to him. Finally on 23.07.2013 he sent a legal notice to the respondents and despite that the medical expenses were not reimbursed to him.

(2.) The petitioner has sought a direction for reimbursement of the medical expenses with interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that as per Appendix VIII Reimbursement in relaxation of Rules, in emergent cases, the petitioner is entitled for the reimbursement as his father was admitted in hospital on emergent basis due to deteriorating health condition. Reliance is also placed on the findings in the case of Shri Ram Dhari Singh vs. Delhi Administration and Others, 1992 48 DLT 4.

(3.) The respondents have referred Rule 6 of Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944, Government of India's GI, MH, OM/ No.F-33- 4/59-H I dated 18th/29th July, 1960, Govt. of India's decision No.4 (i) and (ii), and have stated that since the patient was referred to St. Stephens Hospital, New Delhi on his request, in violation of these rules he has no claim. It is submitted that the patient ought to have referred to the concerned District Hospital. District hospital can only refer a case to a hospital outside the State in case of non-availability of such facility in the District/State. The petitioner was asked to rectify/justify it and re-submit the medical documents. Instead the petitioner had sent the legal notice and before any decision is made on his legal notice, the writ petition has been filed.