KUNJIRAMAN M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petitions and learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in OP No. 16493/2000 is that he was given an interest free loan of Rs. 80,000/- for undergoing the surgery. However, when the medical bill for Rs. 1,13,289/- was presented for reimbursement 2nd respondent allowed only Rs. 70,939/ - and directed him to remit Rs. 9,061/- towards the balance amount of advance taken. So far as the case of petitioner in O.P. No. 16506/2000 is concerned, he was given an interest free loan of Rs. 85,000/- for the surgery. However, when the medical bill for Rs. 143,145/- was presented for reimbursement, 2nd respondent allowed only Rs. 83,745/- and directed recovery of the balance amount from him out of the loan advance. It is against these proceedings petitioners filed these original petitions.

(3.) Learned Counsel for petitioners contended that the only Government hospital which had the facility, i.e. Sree Chithira Thirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, was fully booked for long period and consequently petitioners could not get the surgery done in time in that hospital. However, on account of emergency, petitioners got admitted in Sree Uthradam Thirunal Hospital at Thiruvananthapuram, where the operations were done. The contention of learned Counsel is that petitioners are entitled to full reimbursement as against the partial allowances granted by 2nd respondent. Learned Government Pleader has stated that reimbursement is based on provisions of the Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules 1961, which in Rule 8(3) provides for reimbursement only to the extent permissible in a government hospital, even if a sick employee undergoes treatment in an authorized private hospital. The case of 2nd respondent is that no medical expenses in excess of what is permissible under the above Rule could be reimbursed. Of course, the Rules do not visualize the case of emergency surgery required to save life like bypass surgery, which cannot be carried on in all Government Hospitals. Therefore, the Rules certainly require amendment taking into account the emergency treatment required for sick Government servants like bye-pass surgery, accident cases etc. the want of facilities available in ordinary Government hospitals and long waiting in the few Government hospitals where the facilities are available. However, so long as the Rule is in force, the respondents are bound by the same and there is no provision to overlook the Rules. Learned Counsel for petitioners have referred to order issued by the Government vide G.O.(p)No. 45/97/H&FWD dated 18/02/1997, which contains certain guidelines for reimbursement It is seen from the said order produced in Court that for coronary artery by-pass surgery, the approximate expenditure eligible for reimbursement is Rs. 1 lakh. In the circumstances and in the light of the Government Order produced in Court, I direct 2nd respondent to reimburse Rs. 1 lakh to the petitioners. Excess over the amount reimbursed after adjusting remaining loan amount, should be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by the petitioners.