R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. GOVT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses by sanctioning financial assistance for undergoing Heart surgery in International Centre for Cardio Thoracic and Vascular Diseases, (a Unit of Frontier Life Line Pvt. Ltd.) at R-30-C, Ambattur Industrial Estate Road, Mogappair Chennai-101, under Tamil Nadu Government Pensioners Health Funds Scheme as per G. O. No. 207 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 22. 4. 1997 to the petitioner without reference to the list of accredited institutions within the time fixed by this Court. This petition is filed for a direction directing the respondents to reimburse the petitioner's medical expenses by sanctioning financial assistance for undergoing Heart Surgery in International Centre for Cardiac Thoracic and Vascular Diseases at Ambattur under Tamil Nadu Government Pensioners Health Funds Scheme as per G. O. Ms. No. 207 Finance (Pension) Department, dated 22. 4. 1997 to the petitioner without reference to the list of accredited institutions.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the member of the Tamil Nadu Government Pensioners Health Fund Scheme and admittedly as per the said scheme, the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the medical expenses spent by him subject to the maximum of Rs. 50,000/- or 75% whichever is less. Admittedly, the petitioner is the member of the said scheme and he has also undergone treatment. However, according to the petitioner, the claim of the petitioner is not considered by the respondents on the ground that he has undergone the said treatment in a hospital which is not accredited under the Government Order. It is also the case of the petitioner that even though at the time of undergoing the treatment, the institution was not accredited. Subsequently, it was approved. This issue has already been decided by the Madurai Bench of this Court dated 22. 03. 2006 following the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1996 (1) SLR of 786 In (Surjit Singh Vs. State Of Punjab And Others) wherein it was held that the right of treatment was a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and during the time of emergency, the petitioner cannot be expected to stand in the queue in the Government Hospital and the petitioner therefore had the right to take steps in self preservation.

(3.) IN similar circumstances while dealing with the similar scheme, this Court by order dated 14. 03. 2005 passed in W. P. No. 1175 of 2004 In Radhakrishnan Vs The Director General of Police And Another And Also In W. P. No. 6318 of 2003 By Order Dated 18. 08. 2003 In D. Rajarathinam Vs Management Of Metro Transport Corporation Ltd. , Chennai-2, held that the listing of hospitals cannot be the policy of the Government, when the purpose of the social legislation is to reimburse the amount of expenses which are incurred for having undergone the treatment. This Court has also taken a decision in the above referred cases that the policy of the Government is not relating to the fixing of the hospital but it can only be relating to the providing of medical treatment and therefore the amount incurred towards medical expenses were directed to be reimbursed, however to the extent to which the petitioner is eligible.