ARVIND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ganesh Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned junior counsel to Government Advocate No. 1 for the respondents. The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to reimburse the petitioners claim for the treatment of his son (Sonu Kumar), undergone in Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow (S.G.P.I. for short), K.G.S. Medical College, Lucknow, and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi (AIIMS, in short). The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have, inter alia, submitted that the petitioner did not obtain prior permission for treatment of his son outside Bihar and the claim is, therefore, inadmissible in view of the provisions of the Bihar Medical Attendance Rules.

(2.) ACCORDING to the writ petition, the petitioners son aged nine years, in the year 1998, was suffering from neurosurgical disorder and was ultimately diagnosed to be a case of Left Cerebellar Arteriovenous Malformation. The petitioner was then posted as a Headmaster in Goveminent Primary School, Gopi Bigha, Chandi (Nalanda). Sonu Kumar was treated by Dr. Arun Kumar Agrawal, Associate Professor of Neurosurgery, PMCH, in November 1998. In view of the gravity of the ailment, he referred him to Sanjay Gandhi P.G. Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. The petitioner immediately proceeded to Lucknow, and the child was admitted in the Neurosurgery Department of the said Hospital on 24.11.1998. He underwent treatment at the hospital in Lucknow upto 5.12.98. On 7.12.98, Sonu Kumar was referred to AllMS, New Delhi. His treatment commenced at AIIMS on 15.12.98, which continued upto 21.8.99. He had undergone the first round of treatment for embolisation at AIIMS during this period, and was advised to report again on 24.10.99 for the second round of treatment. The Essentiality Certificate of AIIMS and Discharge Summary Certificate are marked Annexures -1 and 3 respectively. The petitioner returned to Patna and submitted his representation dated 20.9:99 (Annexure -A), for reimbursement of the expenditure incurred over the treatment of his son, and for permission for the second round of treatment at AIIMS as well as for advance. It is inter alia, stated in the petitioners representation dated 20.9.99 (Annexure -5=Annexure -A), that Sonu Kumar shall appear before the State Medical Board on 30.9.99. The Medical Board recommended his case for treatment immediately. Sonu Kumar could not proceed to New Delhi for want of reimbursement, non -payment of advance money, and nonissuance of permission for treatment at AIIMS, and died on 30.10.99. The State Government in the Department of Health belatedly issued order no. 4091(24), dated 1.12.99 (Annexure -B), according permission to the petitioner for treatment at AIIMS, and was allowed to undertake journey along with one attendant. In so far as the first round of treatment was concerned, his claim has substantially been rejected on the ground that prior permission had not been obtained for treatment outside Bihar. However, a sum of Rs. 3531/ - was sanctioned for payment, vide order bearing memo No. 24/M 2 -294/99, dated 24.8.2000 (Annexure -7).

(3.) THE respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned action. It is submitted that prior permission of the State Government is essential for treatment outside the State of Bihar.