ABDUL MAZID Vs. FARUQUE SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. T. D. Majumder, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioner herein, who has been serving the Government of Tripura as a school mother and falls in the category of Group D employees under the Department of Social Welfare and Social Education Department, became a patient of heart ease. On examining the petitioner, the Standing Medical Board of GBP Hospi - tal, Agartala, referred the petitioner to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, for ASD Clo - sure. The SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, is a hospital, which is recognized by the State Government for obtaining treatment for Government employees, who are referred for treatment outside the State. Though the petitioner reported to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, on 20.05.2004, for requisite treat - ment, the said hospital gave 20.07.2004 as the tentative date for her admission. While Ihe petitioner was planning to come back to Agartala, she received a message from Uier nephew that she was ill at Bangalore. ODn the request of her parents and other relatives, the petitioner went to Bangalore to attend to her said ailing nephew. While at Bangalore, the petitioner felt severe pain in her chest and, on the advice of the doc - tor, she was, immediately, rushed to Narayan Hrudayalaya Institute of Cardiac Science, where the doctor took decision for ASD Closure, i.e., open heart surgery, in order to save the life of the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly admitted in the said Institute on 11.06.2004 and af - ter thorough check-up, she was operated there. The petitioner was operated, as in - dicated hereinbefore, on a package de - clared by the said hospital at Rs. 90,000/- though, ordinarily, the charge would have been Rs. 1,10,000/-. On being released from the said Institute on 22.06.2004, the petitioner came to Agartala and submitted, on 01.08.2004, the medical bills for reim - bursement. On repeated representations dismade, in this regard, by the petitioner, the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2 refused to reimburse the medical expenses. As the petitioner's repeated repre sentations yielded no fruitful result, she has come to this Court, with the help of present writ petition, seeking issuance of appropriate writ (s) directing the respondents to make payment of the requisite medical expenses to the petitioner.

(3.) The respondents have resisted the claim of the writ petitioner by contending, inter alia, that according to the relevant rules/policies, Narayana Hrudayalaya Institute of Cardiac Science, not being a recognized hospital under the Government of Tripura, the petitioner is not entitled to receive reimbursement of her medical expenses.