LAWS(P&H)-2008-3-172

GURPREM DASS Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ORS.

Decided On March 24, 2008
Gurprem Dass Appellant
V/S
Central Administative Tribunal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition,, is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as "the Tribunal") on 28.02.2007 whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner challenging the rejection of his medical reimbursement claim, was dismissed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that on 23..09.2004, he was admitted in the General ' Hospital on account of hypertension. He was discharged on 26.09.2004 and was advised bed rest upto 18.10.2004. On 15.10.2004, his condition worsened and was rushed to Fortis Hospital at Mohali. On doing angiography, Coronary Artery Bye -pass Grafting (CABG) was recommended, he was removed to Escort Heart Institute, New Delhi, where CABG was performed on him on 19.10.2004. A sum of Rs. 2,14,599/ - was spent for which he submitted medical bills but reimbursement to the extent of Rs. 76,239/ - and Rs. 5,503/ - alone was made. Therefore, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for claiming the balance amount along with interest thereon.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, before the learned Tribunal, relied upon the order of the Tribunal in J.D. Verma v. Union of India O.A. No. 646 -CH of 1995 decided on March 27, 1996. The said judgment was distinguished by the learned Tribunal on the ground that in the case of J.D. Verma (supra), the treatment was taken in a private hospital in emergent conditions but in the present case, it was not performed in an emergent situation. The Medical Board considered the claim of the petitioner for ex -post facto sanction but the petitioner could not satisfy the Medical Board in respect of emergent situation in which he has taken treatment. It was also found that the Government employees are entitled to claim medical reimbursement at PGI/AIIMS/Government rates and that prior permission is required to be obtained from the competent authority in case medical treatment is to be taken from the hospital other than the prescribed in the rules.