RAVI SHANKAR KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S.B.K. Manglam for the petitioner, and Mr. Shambhu Nath, learned junior counsel to Government Pleader No. 1. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash letter no. 14/M2 -298/2001 -3063(14)/Health, dated 6.6.2002 (Annexure -8), issued under the signature of the Deputy Director, Health Services, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the petitioner 's claim for reimbursement on account of treatment of his late father, has been rejected.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, the petitioner 'slate father (Banshidhar Jha) was posted as a village level worker in Supaul circle office. He vomitted blood on 30.9.2001 and became unconscious. He was rushed to Patna and was admitted in the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Sheikhpura, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.G.I.M.S. '), on 2.10.2001, and was treated up to 17.10.2001. A photo copy of his bed -head ticket is marked Annexure -1 to the writ petition. He was discharged on 18.10.2001, and it appears from the discharge summary dated 18.10.2001 (Annexure -2) that he was referred to the Cardiothoracic Unit and the E.N.T. Unit of the All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'AIIMS ') for further treatment. It is further stated in the writ petition that he had earlier undergone angioplasty in 1984. He was examined in AIIMS on 24.10.2001, was admitted as an indoor patient on 27.10.2001, and was discharged on 10.12.2001 after full treatment. He had, during the period of his hospitalisation in AIIMS, undergone Aortic Stent Grafting and had paid total sum of Rs. 2,76,281/ - to AIIMS. This position seems to be evidenced by the certificates issued by the AIIMS, photo copies of which are marked Annexures 3 to 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner in due course submitted reimbursement bill to the State Government which was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Supaul, to the Director -in -Chief, Government of Bihar, vide his letter no. 219 -2, dated 23.3.2002 (Annexure -7). The same has been rejected by the impugned order dated 6.6.2002 (Annexure -8) on the sole ground that he had undergone treatment at AIIMS without reference of the authorised doctor and the Medical Board and without obtaining prior permission of the State Government. It further appears that in the meanwhile, his father 's health further deteriorated and he had to be re -admitted in AIIMS, where he died on 15.6.2002.

(3.) ON a perusal of the materials on record and consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears to me that the stand taken by the respondent authorities is unreasonable. There may be cases where there may not be enough time to obtain prior permission of the State Government, as indeed was the situation in the present case. The patient had history of heart problem and he had undergone Angioplasty in 1984, as is manifest from the discharge summary of I.G.I.M.S (Annexure -2). He had to be admitted in IGIMS on an emergency basis on 2.10.2001 and was treated until 17.10.2001. The Doctors in IGIMS had found his condition critical, were unable to manage the complicated case, and had forwarded him to AIIMS, where he was examined on 24.10.2001, and had undergone Aortic Stent Grafting on 28.10.2001. He was admitted in AIIMS as an indoor patient from 27.10.2001 to 10.12.2001. The patient was then posted at Supaul. It is manifest on the face of it that there was no time for the employee to obtain prior permission of the State Government before proceeding to AIIMS for treatment. The employee was althrough in a precarious and complicated condition of health and had to be readmitted in AIIMS where he ultimately died on 15.6.2002. He was after all referred to AIIMS by IGIMS, Patna, a Government hospital. The Discharge Summary dated 18.10.2001 (Annexure -2), issued by AIIMS, stated that "... He is being referred to Cardiothoracic Unit & E.N.T Unit, AIIMS, New Delhi, for further treatment."