RAM SAGAR RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involving an identical dispute are disposed of by this common order. The dispute relates to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a Government servant in connection with treatment outside the State.

(2.) The facts of CWJC No. 2060 are as follows. The petitioner is retired Secretary (Technical), central Design Organisation in the Road Construction Department. While in service he underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the Escorts Heart Hospital New Delhi on 21-9-2001. Earlier he was examined by Dr. R. K. Agrawal of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Cardiology Patna who advised him to go to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for further treatment. In view of his condition he could not take steps for examination by a Medical Board at Patna and had to rush to Delhi on 11-9-2001. It is relevant to mention here that on 16-10-2001 post-facto permission for specialised treatment from 11-9-2001 at Delhi was granted. According to the petitioner on account of long queue of patients in the AIIMS he could not be admitted there and in the circumstances under medical advice for immediate surgery he was taken to the Escorts Heart Hospital (Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Limited) on 13-9-2001 he underwent surgery on 21-9-2001, as stated above. On return from Delhi he submitted bill for Rs. 2,46,0847- for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him in connection with the aforesaid treatment. The request for reimbursement was rejected on the ground that outside state treatment in private hospital without prior approval was not permissible under the rules. The rejection was communicated by the Deputy Director of Health Services (Administration) by his letter No. 2256(14) dated 15-4-2002.

(3.) CWJC No. 3019 has been filed on behalf on Anil Kumar Verma by his wife after his death. Anil Kumar Verma was Probation Officer in the Home (Jail) Department at Siwan. In the year 1999 a mass was detected on his right cheek which on examination by experts was detected as cancer, He was treated at the Mahabir Cancer Sansthan, Patna to which he was referred by the Patna Medical College & Hospital. After preliminary investigation he was referred to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai or AIIMS New Delhi for specialised treatment. He along with his family members rushed to New Delhi but finding the admission in the AIIMS difficult he went to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi. There he was operated upon by a panel of doctors headed by Dr. A.K. Diwan. He also underwent radiotherapy. He returned to.Siwan but the treatment made him very weak. He sent representation to the I.G. (Prisons) Bihar for his transfer to Patna but no order was passed. After his condition started deteriorating, he had to be rushed to Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute, New Delhi again where it was detected after investigation that the disease had relapsed. The members of the family tried for admission in the AIIMS on 21-7-2000 for chemotherapy but failed as no bed was available. As the condition further deteriorated he was taken to Dharmshila Cancer Hospital & Research Centre for a chemotherapy cycle from 17-8-2000 to 2-10-2000. Thereafter he returned to Patna. On 2-11-2000 the Radium Institute of PMCH advised him specialised treatment outside the State at New Delhi. On 2-11-2000 he was rushed to New Delhi where he was readmitted in Dharmshila Cancer Centre for another chemotherapy cycle from 3-11-2000. He finally died on 10-11-2000. After his death the petitioner submitted medical bills along with the original papers, for Rs. 2,92,791.98 for reimbursement. She sent reminders and kept running from pillar to post. Finally on 5-12-2002 she was informed by the Assistant Inspector General (Jails) that claim for reimbursement had been rejected at the level of the Chief Minister.