S KARUNAMOORTHY Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-S.Karunamoorthy has filed the present Writ Petition seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 to 3 to pay the bill amount of Rs.3,50,000/- vide Bill No.2025 dated 26.05.2010 raised by the fourth respondent Hospital herein for the Cleft Maxillary Distraction treatment done on the Petitioner's son Master.K.Ganesh.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Office Superintendent in the office of the first respondent, viz., the Chennai Port Trust. The Chennai Port Trust Hospital was established by the Port Trust for the purpose of giving treatment to its employees and their family members. Though most of the facilities are available in the Hospital, if any special treatment is required, which is not available in the Hospital, the employees are entitled to take treatment at the Speciality/Private Hospitals. In such a situation, the employee has to obtain the quotation from the Hospitals and get necessary sanction from the authorities of the Port Trust, and only after grant of proper sanction, the private Hospital would do the necessary medical treatment and thereafter, the medical treatment bills would be submitted to the Chennai Port Trust and the same would be paid by the Port Trust directly to the said Speciality Hospital, as per Regulation 8 (a) of the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Medical Attendance in the Trust's Hospital and Reimbursement of Hospital Charges) Regulations, 1994. While so, the petitioner's son Master K.Ganesh, who was aged about 16 years and struggling for life due to Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate deformity, was taken to the Chennai Port Trust Hospital for treatment. As specialised treatment required for treating the above said deformity and the same was not available with the Chennai Port Trust Hospital, the said Hospital referred the petitioner's son for taking treatment from the Guest Hospital, Chennai. After taking preliminary treatment there, the petitioner approached Balaji International Dental Craniofacial Hospital & Reserach Institute, the fourth respondent herein, after getting proper sanction from the competent authority. A certificate was also issued by Dr.S.M.Balaji, stating that he examined the Master K.Ganesh, S/o.S.Karunamoorthy, for the ailment i.e., Bilateral Cleft Lip and Palate, and advised him to admit in Isabel Hospital, Chennai 4, for surgery. The said Doctor further stated that the patient needs ten days' hospitalisation and estimated the cost for all expenses about Rs.32,000/- in his letter dated 21.04.2001. Subsequently, by another communication issued by the Chennai Port Trust dated 04.05.2001 Isabel Hospital Chennai-4 has show that after completing the second and third stages, the petitioner finally took his son to the fourth respondent viz., Dr.S.M.Balaji, Balaji Dental and Craniofacial Hospital, after getting estimation on 10.05.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner also made a written request on 15.05.2007 to the first respondent for granting permission to refer his son for surgery to the fourth respondent's Hospital and also to meet the entire expenses to be incurred in this regard, by duly enclosing a copy of the estimation given by the Dr.S.M.Balaji. The respondents also granted permission for taking treatment of Maxillary Distraction Surgery in the fourth respondent's hospital by communication dated 29.04.2008. Pursuant to the approval granted, the petitioner's son was given pre-operative treatment on 25.06.2008. Finally, after removing the distraction and suture on 05.10.2010, the fourth respondent's hospital raised the bill on 26.05.2010 for a total sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and the same was sent to the third respondent, viz., the Chief Medical Officer, Chennai Port Trust Hospital, Chennai, for making payment. Thereafter, the respondents declined to honour the bill on the ground that it is for the petitioner to make the payment first and thereafter, he has to make an application to the respondents 1 to 3 seeking to reimburse the entire amount only thereafter, the respondents 1 to 3 shall reimburse as per the Rules. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(3.) THIS is a case where the petitioner was admittedly granted sanction for his son's treatment in the fourth respondent's Hospital and the re-joinder filed by respondents 1 to 3 clearly shows that the petitioner's son was referred to Balaji International Dental Craniofacial Hospital for Maxillary Distraction Surgery on 29.04.2008. Paragraph 4 of the re-joinder admits the case of the petitioner that there was a sanction granted in favour of the petitioner for his son to take treatment from the fourth respondent's hospital, thereby, the case of the petitioner is squarely falling within the ambit of Regulation 8 (a) of the Madras Port Trust Employees' (Medical Attendance in the Trust's Hospital and Reimbursement of Hospital Charges) Regulations, 1994. It is relevant to extract below Regulations 8 (a), 8(b), 9(1) and 9(2) :-