GURNAM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming medical reimbursement of medical expenses, about 89 years old petitioner Gurnam Singh Mann has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus quashing Memo dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure P -6) and directing the respondents to make reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. l 1377/ - incurred on the operation of his right eye.

(2.) The petitioner retired as Associate Professor from the respondent -University, which is a State instrumentality. While he was away to his village in district Amritsar, the petitioner experienced piercing pain in his right eye. He rushed to Dr. Daljit Singh Eye Hospital at Amritsar where he was admitted and cataract surgery was performed on his eye as an emergency operation. In all, the petitioner spent a sum of Rs. l1,377/ - on the aforesaid treatment and submitted the claim to the respondent -University for reimbursement thereof. In response, the petitioner received a Memo dated 24.9.2002 (Annexure P -6) along with a copy of decision of the Medical Board refusing to reimburse the medical expenses on the ground that allowing reimbursement of the treatment taken at a place other than the city of his residence without following the proper procedure would create a wrong precedent and that the retiree was a resident of Chandigarh where all facilities exist. It is pleaded by the petitioner that respondent -University itself has issued a Notification dated 12.3.2001, inter alia notifying that reimbursement of medical charges in respect of pending cases may be allowed at the rate of P.G.I. After rejection of his claim for medical reimbursement at the hands of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T. Chandigarh by filing a complaint, which was rejected vide order dated 7.5.2003 (Annexure P -9) on the ground that the dispute did not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act and the petitioner was relegated to seek his remedy before the appropriate Forum/Court. Appeal preferred before the State Commission against the said decision of the Consumer Forum was also dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2003 (Annexure P -10).

(3.) In their written statement, respondents No. l to 4, while justifying the impugned decision to be correct, have inter alia stated that the petitioner did not comply with the rules/instructions issued from time to time with regard to medical reimbursement. The petitioner neither took permission from the University Medical Board nor obtained the consent of the District Chief Medical Officer before getting the treatment at Amritsar. It is further stated that the ailment was not so serious as to warrant immediate treatment from a private doctor.