SHYAMA MALHOTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner No.1 is the mother of the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 is a retired Government servant. The petitioner No.2 is currently a Government servant and is serving as a senior officer in the Indian Police Service. The question involved in the present petition is with regard to the reimbursement of medical expenditure incurred on account of the medical treatment provided to the petitioner No.1.

(2.) The petitioner No.1 underwent surgical intervention at the Nephrology Department of Batra Hospital during 25.5.2005 to 18.8.2005. At that point of time, the petitioner No.1 was a retired public servant having been an employee of the Central Government till 31.10.1985. The petitioner No.1 did not have a CGHS card in her own name but her name was included in petitioner No. 2's card as a dependent.

(3.) The petitioner No.2 submitted the claim for the medical treatment provided to the petitioner No.1 as indicated above. The claim was allowed in part. The total amount allegedly spent on the treatment was Rs.14,22,820/- but only a sum of Rs.10,06,666/- was reimbursed to the petitioner No.2. Subsequently, some objections were raised on account of the petitioner No.1 being a pensioner and receiving the benefits in excess of Rs.1500/- per month and yet being shown as a dependent. It was objected that she was not entitled to reimbursement as a dependent of her son (petitioner No.2). As a result of this objection, the petitioner No.2 returned the entire amount i.e., Rs 10,06,666/- to the respondent without prejudice to the claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioner No.1, on 20.03.2006, was issued a CGHS Card bearing No. 86433 in her own name. Having got the CGHS Card, the petitioner No.1 applied for reimbursement of the entire amount of Rs.14,22,820/-. That application was rejected by a letter dated 26.06.2006 issued by the CMO, CGHS on the ground that the treatment period was 25.5.2005 to 18.8.2005 whereas the CGHS token card was issued much later on 20.03.2006 i.e., after the treatment. Accordingly, the medical reimbursement claim was held to be not reimbursable as per the CGHS Rules.