JOHN PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Original Petition for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P10 and P14 and to direct the respondents to reimburse the amounts mentioned in Ext. P8 bill to the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner entered the service in 1960 as a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department and retired as Executive Engineer on 28-2-1988. In 1976 he had the first episode of acute myocardial infarction. He was hospitalised for three weeks in Medical College Hospital, Kottayam in the intensive care unit. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, in connection with his acute heart ailment. In 1987 he had another attack, when he was admitted to the Cardiology Ward on 28-6-1987. Finally, Dr. Rajan Joseph Manjooran, Cardiologist and Associate Professor of Cardiology and Head of the Department in charge, who had treated the petitioner, was of opinion that the petitioner's improvements are not satisfactory. He was of opinion that he requires advanced investigation and surgical treatment. According to him, considering condition of the petitioner, there is a high risk in undertaking the procedure of treatment, "internal mammary artery graft and coronary artery bypass graft surgery" and hence he advised him to go abroad and to undergo the above procedures. Ext. P1 is the letter issued to him by Dr. Rajan Joseph Manjooran. Ext. P2 is the medical report with regard to the condition of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made enquiries and came to know that the treatment in Australia was the cheapest and as such he decided to undergo treatment in Etwonh Hospital, 34, Erin Street, Richmond Victoria 3121, Australia. Ext. P3 is the letter received from Etworth Hospital agreeing to undertake the surgery. Petitioner then addressed the Director of Health Services to go abroad for treatment. Ext. P4 is the letter addressed to the Government for recommendation of the Director of Health Services. Ext. P4(a) is the true copy of the form submitted by him to the government, wherein it is stated that in spite of the best treatment available in India no improvement has taken place and it is necessary in the interest of the health of the patient to seek treatment abroad. This certificate was signed by Dr. Rajan Joseph Manjooran and countersigned by the Principal, Medical College, Kottayam. By Ext. P5, the petitioner addressed the Chief Engineer to grant leave without allowances for 47 days from 17-9-1987 to 3-11-1987. Ext. P6 is the order of the Chief Engineer, whereby he was sanctioned leave without allowances on medical grounds. Ext. P7 is the release of foreign exchange for medical treatment abroad. After undergoing surgery, the petitioner returned to Kottayam on 8-11-1987 and took charge of his office on 9-11-1987. Petitioner had to spend an amount of Rs. 1,44,943/- (15484.40 Australian Dollars). This is evident from Ext. P8. Petitioner then filed Ext. P9 representation to the Secretary to Government (Health Services), Secretariat, Trivandrum for reimbursement of the amount spent by him. By Ext. P10, the petitioner's representation was rejected, stating that his proposal cannot be agreed to. Ext. P11 is another communication received by him, stating that there is no reason to reconsider the representation Ext. P10. Hence this Original Petition.

(3.) The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, stating that for medical treatment abroad the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services should make specific recommendations and also give reasons for recommending treatment abroad. It should also certify that the treatment is not available in India. This certificate should also be endorsed by the Director of Health Services and the same shall be sent to the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi for his approval. Petitioner has not complied with the aforesaid conditions in the Norm No. 2 of Travel for medical treatment abroad given as Ext. P4(a). So far as he is concerned, it has only been certified by the Associate Professor of Cardiology, Medical College, Hospital, Kottayam, that in spite of the treatment available in India, no improvement has taken place and it is necessary in the interest of health of the patient to seek the treatment abroad. Petitioner's request has been declined by the Government, which is in conformity with the provisions contained in Ext. P12, wherein it has been stated that, as a rule reimbursement of the cost of medical treatment abroad should not be allowed. Petitioner has not obtained sanction from the Government to go abroad.