RAVINDER PARSHAD BHARDWAJ Vs. H.P. GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had served the respondent-bank as its Manager. The respondent-bank stands sponsored by the Punjab National Bank and came into existence with the amalgamation of RRB. Since the respondent bank is performing public function for the welfare of the people of the State of Himachal Pradesh, as such, it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this High Court.

(2.) In the year 2006 the petitioner was diagnosed for 'Choroidal Neovascular Membrane' in his right eye. The aforesaid ailment of the right eye which befell the petitioner is averred to be a critical eye ailment which can cause loss of eye sight. For curing the aforesaid ailment in his right eye the petitioner undertook treatment at Super Specialized Institution i.e. Dr. Rajinder Prashad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi. Annexure P-1 appended to the writ petition comprises the record of treatment undertaken by the petitioner herein at the aforesaid hospital. It also details the expenses incurred by the petitioner herein for receiving the apposite treatment from Dr. Rajinder Prashad Centre for ophthalmic sciences. The petitioner claimed from the respondent bank reimbursement of Rs. 65,000/- constituting the expenses incurred by him for receiving medical treatment for curing the ailment of 'Choroidal Neovascular Membrance' which afflicted his right eye. However, under Annexure P-2, the respondent rejected his claim. Under Annexure P-3 the petitioner made a representation to the respondent bank enunciating therein that the rejection of his claim by the latter for reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 65,000/- to him comprising the expenses incurred by him for curing his ailment aforesaid by his receiving treatment from Dr. Rajinder Prashad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi, was in the face of the apt rules governing the reimbursement of medical expenses claimed by him from the respondent bank, untenable. However, under Annexure P-4 the respondent bank turned down the representation of the petitioner comprised in Annexure P-3 against the former rejecting his claim for reimbursement of medical expenses raised by him under Annexure P-1. The ground as meted out in Annexure P-4 for the respondent bank turning down the representation of the petitioner against the rejection of his claim for medical reimbursement preferred by him before the respondent bank arising from his having received treatment for curing disorder of Choroidal Neovasular Membrane of his right eye from Dr. Rajinder Prashad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, New Delhi, is constituted in the fact that PDT Therapy was not performed as part of Hospitalization, hence the same is not payable. The respondent in its reply meted to the writ petition has supported the reasons meted out in Annexure P-4 for rejecting the representation made by the petitioner before it comprised in Annexure P-3 against the refusal on the part of the respondent-bank to reimburse to him the medical expenses incurred by him for curing disorder of Choroidal Neovascular Membrane of his right eye. Even though there is a mandate in the relevant portion of the rules (which stand extracted hereinafter) governing besides regulating the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by the officers, staff and their family members and it having been enjoined therein that hospitalization expenses incurred by staff