B M GULATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, Dr B. M. Gulati through this writ petition assails the order dated 8th May, 2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal bench, New Delhi in OA No. 1943/2001. The Tribunal, while dismissing the said application held that the petitioner is not entitled to payment for the costs incurred at Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as EHIRC) as the same is not an authorized or a referral hospital. The Tribunal also held that petitioner being an ESIC retiree, was not eligible for treatment at EHIRC. Further, the petitioner's wife had not taken the treatment in an emergency condition from EHIRC. Relief was denied holding that in any case, the department had reimbursed the petitioner at prevailing rates admissible at AIIMS.

(2.) PETITIONER, aggrieved by the said order, seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 8. 5. 2003. Out of the total amount of Rs. 3,52,338/- (Three lac fifty two thousand three hundred thirty eight only)expended by the petitioner on treatment of his wife, a sum of Rs. 77,000/- (Seventy seven thousand only) was reimbursed to him by ESIC. He, therefore claims balance of Rs. 2,75,338/- (Two lac seventy five thousand three hundred thirty eight only ). Interest is also claimed for belated payment.

(3.) BEFORE noticing the grounds raised in the present petition, brief facts leading to the filing of writ petition may be noted. (i)Petitioner retired from the service as Director (Medical) ESIC, New Delhi in 1988. In the midnight intervening 4. 8. 1997 and 5. 8. 1997, petitioner's wife Smt. Bimla Gulati suffered a severe heart attack and was rushed to ESIC Hospital, basai Darapur. She was admitted in the ICCU. On 17. 8. 1997, doctors of the ESIC hospital advised her to be shifted to Apollo Hospital for Angiography and further treatment. At that point of time no dates were available for about two weeks in AIIMS or G. B. Pant Hospital for angiography. (ii)At Apollo Hospital, Angiography was performed on 23. 8. 1997 after her admission to ICCU. The main arteries were found blocked. She was advised Bypass surgery. The surgery could not take place due to a low grade fever. She was discharged on 5. 9. 1997 for recouping and improvement, to enable surgery. (iii)However her condition deteriorated. She was rushed to EHIRC on 5. 11. 1997. Upon examination there, she was recommended emergent Bypass surgery in view of blockade and imminence of a cardiac attack. Considering her past history of chronic infection and hypertension, she was recommended "port Hole" surgery. "port hole" surgery was performed successfully on 11. 11. 1997, followed by angioplasty on 21. 11. 1997. Petitioners wife was discharged on 28. 11. 1997. (iv)Petitioner paid/deposited bills to the tune of Rs. 3,52,338/- (Three lac fifty two thousand three hundred thirty eight only) with the respondent No. 2 for reimbursement against which, a sum of Rs. 77,000/- had been paid. Balance amount of Rs. 2,75,338/- (Two lac seventy five thousand three hundred thirty eight only) was not paid despite representations made by the petitioner. (v)On 9. 5. 2001, Petitioner moved a writ petition being WP (C)No. 3779/2002 which was withdrawn to approach the tribunal. In May, 2001, petitioner moved an OA no. 1943/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was dismissed. Hence, present petition.