ANITA GHOSH (ROY) Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA; DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES; DIRECTOR OF FAMILY WELFARE AND PREVENTIVE; SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT; TRIPURA STATE ILLNESS ASSISTANCE FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a house wife, dependent on the income of her husband, a petty shop keeper, having monthly income of Rs.5000/- from all sources, fell ill at her residence at Jatrabari, P.S. Bodhjungnagar, District West Tripura and she attended Ranirbazar Primary Health Centre of her locality on 06.10.2014 wherefrom she was referred to I.G.M. Hospital on that day itself. She was suffering from severe headache and reeling of head. In the I.G.M. Hospital she was referred to the surgery OPD and on 09.10.2014 CT scan of head was done and it was found that she was having with well defined hyperdense lesion in right perisylvian region with suggestion for further evolution to rule out possibility of aneurysm/hemorrhage. The petitioner thereafter attended Agartala Govt. Medical College ( for short, AGMC) with severe headache and vomiting on 10.10.2014 and on that day she was referred to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata/R.N. Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences (RTIICAS) for further investigation and treatment since the required treatment was not available at AGMC.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that on 10.10.2014 itself, the petitioner was taken to RTIICS at Kolkata and she was admitted in the hospital. Some investigation was carried out at a cost at Rs.30,500/- and it was advised that she would require to undergo surgical intervention for removal of right middle cerebral artery bifurcation and giant aneurysm and the cost would be involved about Rs.10 lakhs. The petitioner's husband was not in a position to arrange such a huge amount and so her husband took her to the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHNS), Bangalore and she was admitted in the hospital on 18.10.2014. Some investigations again were made at the cost of Rs.10,727.84 and thereafter the petitioner was given option of either Neurological intervention or surgery and her husband was informed by the doctor that the cost of treatment would be around Rs.10 lakh. Since the petitioner's husband was not in a position to arrange such huge amount, she got discharge from the NIMHNS hospital and thereafter went to Christian Medical College ( for short CMC), Vellore on 11.11.2014 and in that hospital, the treatment of right frontal craniotomy and clipping of the aneurysm was done on 21.11.2014. Thereafter she was discharged on 01.12.2014. She made payment of Rs.1,96.322/- at CMC, Vellore for her treatment.

(3.) Respondents by a common counter affidavit contended that to avail the benefit of THASP one has to follow the guidelines contained in the THASP and since the petitioner did not follow the guidelines at all her claim was not entertained. The Scheme prescribes for assistance in the particular Hospital on cashless basis and since the petitioner did not avail the Scheme according to the procedure as prescribed, her claim was rejected. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.